Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BILL PRESENTED

FIRE SERVICES BILL

"to make further provision for fire services in Great Britain; to transfer fire-fighting functions from the National Fire Service to fire brigades maintained by the councils of counties and county boroughs; to provide for the combination of areas for fire service purposes; to make further provision for pensions and other awards in respect of persons employed in connection with the provision of fire services; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr Ede; supported by Mr. Westwood, Mr. Glenvil Hall, Mr. Oliver and Mr. Thomas Fraser; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to printed. [Bill 39.]

SURPLUS GENERATORS

Mr. Orbach(By Private Notice): asked the Minister of Supply whether he will cancel the sale by auction of surplus generators and diesel engines which has been advertised, and, as an emergency measure, loan without delay these power producing plants to industrial establishments on a priority basis.

An Hon. Member: The Minister is in short supply

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. Orbach) notified the Minister?

Mr. Orbach: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the acting Leader of the House can improvise something for us?

Mr. Speaker: We had better get on.

Orders of the Day — NAVAL FORCES (ENFORCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE LIABILITIES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.7 a.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is short, and I hope uncontroversial—it is certainly not controversial in any party sense—but, I regret to say, it is somewhat complicated., I will do my best to explain it in as few words as possible. The Army and Air Force provide that amounts allowed to a soldier or airman after deduction of his marriage allotment, shall be not less than a quarter of his pay in the case of the ordinary soldier or airman, and, in the case of a warrant or noncommissioned officer not below the rank of sergeant not less than one-third. The Navy work under a different system from the other Services. They have worked under Subsection (2,d) of Section 98A of the Naval Discipline Act introduced in 1915, and amended in 1922. This limits not the proportion, but the actual amount of deductions which can be made from pay without permission.
In the course of time, marriage allowance has increased, and the amount that we must deduct in order that the marriage allowance may be paid has to be increased. We have found that under the new pay code the money limits are inadequate. Marriage allowance is issued direct if a man allots a specific sum. Before the new pay codes of last July, the payment for a chief petty officer was 17s. 6d. and, it he allotted a sum, he received 42s. 6d. a week by way of allowance. But today the qualifying allotment required is no less than 24s. 6d. The position at the moment is that the Admiralty can and do make a compulsory deduction of 21s., and the Treasury are making up the sum of 3s. 6d., so that the marriage allowance may in fact be paid We cannot take the full amount, and, as a temporary measure, the Treasury is making up the allotment.
In order to alter this, we have to employ a certain amount of rather complicated legislation. First, we have to repeal certain Sections of the Naval Discipline Act, and


to arrange for deduction to provide for a man's wife and family to be made through the Naval Pay and Pensions Act, 1865. The principal Amendment is in Clause 1, Subsection (1), which defines the expression "restrictions" in the 1865 Act to provide, first,
for the maintenance of the wife and children (whether legitimate or illegitimate),
and, secondly,
for the payment of … costs, or… expenses incurred in obtaining… an order or decree… in respect of the maintenance
of the wife and family. This will be implemented by Orders in Council. It will take the place of the first part of Subsection (2) of Section 98A of the Naval Discipline Act. That part of the Naval Discipline Act will no longer be acted upon. We shall act instead under this earlier Act as amended.
Subsection (2) protects the man who has left the Service and who may find himself called upon to pay arrears in his allotment for marriage allowance. It merely repeats the relevant portion of Section 98A of the Naval Discipline Act. Subsection (3) is consequential. Subsection (4) is an interim measure which revokes Regulation 132 of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939, under which we have been able to act until now. It provides that any deductions made under these regulations shall continue in effect if they are within the scope of the new Orders in Council which we propose to make under this Bill. The Regulation gave the Admiralty powers to enforce deductions from a man's pay if there was a prima facie case.
For example, suppose a wife suddenly wrote and said that she had ceased to receive the allotment from her husband, who was a long way, away, maybe in the Pacific, this provision makes arrangements by which the money can continue to be paid to her until we know whether the man should or should not pay her. Clause 2 similarly revokes Regulation 13 (2A). This gave power, that though a man requested his commanding officer to terminate his allotment, it should be continued compulsorily until the Admiralty were satisfied that it should be terminated. We can act quite quickly in these cases. Some hon. Members may be worried, for example, about the case of a man, whose wife has gone off with somebody else, who wishes to terminate the allotment.
They may say that he has a perfect right to do so and that the woman has behaved very badly indeed. We can find out with great speed what is the situation in that family. The family welfare officer can find out quickly and, if the situation is as I have described, naturally the allotment would not be paid. It may be, however, that the situation is different, and in that case the allotment would continue to be paid either until a court decides otherwise or the man is able to prove his case. We intend that officers shall come under this scheme in the same way as other ranks. I do not imagine that the number of officers, any more than the number of other ranks, who will have action taken against them, will be very large. There may be none at all, but we consider that the same principle should apply to officers as to ratings. Where, in those very rare cases, an officer may have stopped an allotment without just cause, we consider that we should be able to carry on the allotment in the same way as we can with a rating.
The date of the operation of this Measure will be as the Admiralty appoints. The reason is that the Naval Discipline Act applies, with or without Amendment, to the Australian and New Zealand Navies. Naturally we want to consult the Dominions Office before putting into operation an Act which will effect them. I may add that the Dominions have already been informed about this Measure. Secondly, we want to have time for the Orders in Council to be prepared by the Admiralty in consultation with the other two Service Departments. It is most important that we should work in step with them. I understand, though naturally I cannot speak for either of those other Departments, that corresponding legislation for the Army and the R.A.F. will be amended in certain respects in their Annual Bills. Therefore, that will bring the three Services into line. As I have said, this is a short Bill. I have done my best to explain it perhaps a little more clearly than it is set down. I am ready to answer any questions if hon. Members are not yet clear of the exact implications.

11.16 a.m.

Commander Noble: I rise today in the place of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) who unfortunately is laid up with influenza and who has asked me to apologise to the Financial Secretary for


his absence. We, of course, welcome this Bill in principle. I agree with what the Minister said. There is absolutely no question of party about it. I think there must be agreement on all sides of the House, that a wife and family must be protected against a man who deserts her and similarly a man must have equal safeguards against desertion by his wife. I think it is more difficult to ensure this in the Services than it is in civil life. Perhaps it is particularly difficult in the Navy where a man for some months, and it may be for years, is separated from his family by very considerable distances. There must be delays in securing information both from sea and from the home.
There are, however, one or two small points of detail and administration which we would like to raise. We hope they may be looked into before the Committee stage. First, there is the question of limits of liability. When I first examined the Bill it seemed to me that this was merely bringing the Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act, 1865, into line with Section 98A of the Naval Discipline Act, until I realised, and as the Financial Secretary has explained, that the Naval Discipline Act laid down upper limits for these liabilities and that this Bill does not. If I might digress for a moment, I would say that small Bills like this might well be covered by a short Explanatory Memorandum. In my limited experience, the brevity of a Bill is by no means a measure of its clarity. In this case, I think a very short memorandum, rather on the lines of what the Financial Secretary has just said, would have been a great help.
To return to the question of the upper limits, which are included in the Naval Discipline Act and not in this Bill, I fully realise that this is brought about by the fact that the full allotment for marriage allowance is now above the limits set down in the Naval Discipline Act. Therefore the limit must be put up. I do not know what the figure is to be, whether it is to be put up merely to the full allotment figure or to correspond with the figures which the Financial Secretary gave in his opening sentences, which now apply to the Royal Air Force and the Army. I think there should be no doubt at all in this Bill as to man's liability. At the moment we are committing an officer or a man to an unlimited liability which must
be decided upon by Order in Council. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite Eyre) will deal more fully with this point later. I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to give consideration to it before the Committee stage.
My second point is that Clause 1 (2) re-enacts a paragraph of Section 98A Subsection (2) of the Naval Discipline Act, but it leaves out, in our opinion, a very important Section. I will not quote it all, but it begins: "Provided that no such deductions", and it ends "unless the contrary is proved." This gives to personnel a very necessary safeguard, in that the Admiralty have to satisfy themselves, to quote again,
that the person against whom the order or decree was made has had a reasonable opportunity of appearing himself, or has appeared by a duly authorised legal representative, to defend the case before the court by which the order or decree was made.
That is a very important point, and there is no reference to it in this Bill. There is no such safeguard now, though I will admit that, in Subsection (3) of the relevant Section of the Naval Discipline Act, there are provisions whereby the service of proceedings has to be accompanied by a sum of money to enable the man to attend the court and return to his place of duty. I think that additional protection should be given. It was given before, and I do not see why it should not be included again. I hope the Financial Secretary will consider that point.
My third point concerns Clause 2, which has been referred to by the Financial Secretary, who said that, in these matters, the Admiralty could work very quickly. I am sure they could, but I think that there may be cases in which they will not be able to work quickly. Let us imagine a man hearing bad news from home and wanting to stop his allotment: a report from the man's commanding officer will go to the Admiralty asking that the case should be gone into. It might be that the Admiralty would reply in writing, the ship might be away, and there might be a resultant delay or it might be that the Admiralty, although I know that their welfare officers are absolutely first-class, might have some difficulty in finding the information. During that delay, the man still pays the allotment. I understand that, during the war, this was covered by an Admiralty fleet order which stated that the amount which it was sub-


Sequently found need not have been paid over this period could be refunded, and I shall be grateful if consideration could be given to that point.
I am very glad that officers have been brought into this scheme. I hope that, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, these cases will be very few and far between, though I, personally, know of a case in which an officer serving abroad failed to maintain his wife, who was in this country, thereby causing her very great worry. It is for this sort of case that this Bill is designed. I understood the Financial Secretary to say that it brings us into line with the other two Services, and I think that is a very food thing. The Financial Secretary did not, however, make it quite clear whether the other two Services were going to include officers in their respective Acts. I do not think they do now. I was glad to hear that, in these matters, the Dominions Navies, with whom we work so closely, have been consulted and are considering the matter.
To sum up, we hope that, before the Committee stage, the Financial Secretary will consider these three points—first, that it may be possible to set out in the Bill the upper limits of liability; second, a necessary safeguard for the men whereby the Admiralty have to satisfy themselves that they have had a fair deal; and, third, that we can be sure that a man will not have to be liable for his allotment during any delay which may be caused by the Admiralty going into the case.

11.24 a.m.

Major Bruce: I should like to endorse the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) regarding an Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill. We very often have Explanatory Memoranda in this House, more particularly, I think, in regard to the larger Bills, but it is very often the case that the larger Bills tend to explain themselves as we go through them, and that it is, on the contrary, the smaller Bills, which refer to a number of past enactments, which require some explanation. I hope the Government will take note of the general desire for that information.
This Bill is designed to extend the protection already given to the wives and children of persons who, without good

cause, have deserted their wives and children and left them destitute. I do not think I need enlarge upon the misery, distress and humiliation that very often results from people being left in that predicament. Under the old system, it was necessary, when such cases happened, for the wife to go to the Poor Law authorities, and it often meant separation of mothers from their children. As the years have passed, their protection has been extended owing to the action of the Government, and, in approved cases, it has been possible for the Admiralty, under the old Act, to make deductions from the pay of naval ratings in order that some measure of relief could be given to the wife and children.
Prior to the introduction of this Bill, under Section 98A, Subsection (2), of the Naval Discipline Act, as amended up to June, 1941, the Admiralty were permitted to make deductions from the pay of other ranks or ratings to the uppermost ceiling which has been indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary, provided that they were satisfied that the man had deserted his wife without reasonable cause, or had, in fact, left his legitimate children under 14 years of age without just cause and had not provided for their maintenance in any way. It also covered instances where orders or decrees had been made by the courts against naval personnel for the maintenance of wives and children as a result of actions brought in the courts. The main point was that, at the same time, that Act contained certain safeguards, which have been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea, in that, before the Admiralty made any deductions in respect of orders or decrees, they had to be satisfied that the person against whom the order was made had had a reasonable opportunity by appearing himself or of being legally represented.
During the war, these regulations were extended in order to cover what were emergency conditions, and the various Defence Regulations in particular. No. 13, enabled the Admiralty to make an interim deduction without determining the full accuracy of the facts, and also enabling the Admiralty, during the war, to ensure that, where a sailor had made a voluntary allotment to his wife for the benefit of his wife and family, that sailor could not reduce that allotment unless the Admiralty were, in fact, satisfied that


there was good cause for that to happen. The freezing of the allotment under S.R. & O. 165 of 1945—the one which provides that the allotment shall not be withdrawn without reasonable cause—is, in fact, incorporated in the Bill, and the provisions of S.R. & 0 1943. which provide that there may be certain interim payments has been cancelled, so that it now means that there will be a full review of all the circumstances before the Admiralty sees fit to deduct these sums for the maintenance of wives and children.
It also repeals Section 98 (2, a) which fixes the ceiling, and I gather it is the intention of the Admiralty to publish Orders in Council which will fix the ceiling anew. I do not think that there will be any dissent from this main principle, because it seems, where the ceiling of payments is likely to vary in the future, it is most inadvisable to have Acts of Parliament brought in at two or three yearly intervals to amend the ceiling figure. Having regard to the state of legislation, at least under this Government, it seems that public business is going to take precedence over minor matters of policy, and in the unlikely event of a Government coming to power of a different political complexion to that of the one now in office it would be so busy passing denationalising Measures that it would be unable to find time to pass an amending Bill of this kind. Therefore I think that Orders in Council, in so far as fixing a ceiling are concerned, are for the benefit of the wives and children of naval personnel, and, in fact, the only way of doing it. Orders in Council lie on the Table for a certain time and hon. Members have the opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the contents.
I think it is important that a Section of the Naval Discipline Act which has been repealed by this Bill, should, in fact, be put into this Bill. In repealing Section 98 (2, a) these words are also repealed—they have in fact been referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea:
Provided that no such deductions from pay in liquidation of a sum adjudged to be paid by an order or decree as aforesaid shall he ordered unless the Admiralty are, or the person deputed by them is, satisfied that the person against whom the order or decree was made has had a reasonable opportunity of appearing himself, or has appeared by a duly authorized legal representative, to defend the

case before the court by which the order of decree, was made, and a certificate, purporting to be a certificate of the commanding officer of the ship on which he was or is serving, or on, the books of which he was or is borne, that the person has been prevented by the requirements of the service from attending at a hearing of any such case shall be evidence of the fact unless the contrary is proved.
That seems to be a condition which will not vary with the passage of time, and it also seems to be a condition which will underlie any future Orders in Council that the Admiralty may see fit to lay before the House. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to consider whether or not it would be possible for him to introduce an Amendment on the Committee stage in regard to this provision, which I think he will agree is a very useful one.
I have endeavoured to go through some of the provisions which the Bill does cover, and I must now pass to something which the Bill ought to cover, and which it does not in its existing form. I refer to the distressing cases which happen when naval personnel, married in this country originally, and serving a regular engagement as well as during the war, have been released abroad. When they are released abroad they become entitled to a normal naval pension by reason of their services in the Navy or for that matter in the Marines. Under the circumstances the Government are quite properly liable to pay, and do, in fact, pay pensions to these officers or to these ratings abroad. In some few cases—and they are very few—despicable people desert their wives and families at home, and the wives have absolutely no means of obtaining any kind of redress save by initiating litigation in the country to which the husband has fled, if "fled" be the appropriate term. That is for a large number of people a very costly business, and therefore, almost impossible to operate.
I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary for his consideration that in cases where the Admiralty become liable and do in fact, pay pensions to officers or ratings who are domiciled in an area in which British law has no validity, and in a case where it can be proved that there is absolute desertion of wife and dependents, the Admiralty should amend this Bill so that it can take power to make deductions from the pensions of those who thus desert for the maintenance of the wife and children. I think that that would


be a measure which the masses of the people in the Navy and in the Marines would welcome, because, of course, it does not apply to the majority but only in the case of a despicable few who let down the reputation of the rest. I think it could possibly be done by the insertion of the word "pension" after "pay" in line 11 of Clause 1 of the Bill together with some safeguarding paragraphs which deal with the question of domicile and other factors necessary in these cases. Subject to these observations, I think that this Bill is a very good little Bill, and it will be most widely welcomed, particularly in my constituency of Portsmouth which contains a large number of naval and marine personnel and their wives. I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary in so speedily bringing it forward in this House.

11.37 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It is disappointing that at this time of day it should be necessary for any Service Department to have to resort to such complicated and patchwork methods of removing what all sides of the House will admit is an injustice. The system of allowances in particular is far too complicated in all three Armed Services and much greater effort should be made by the Parliamentary Secretary and the other heads of Service Departments to introduce a greater degree of uniformity in this connection. It is quite impossible at the present time for the men serving in the Forces fully to understand exactly what is the provision with regard to family allowances, and it is all the more disappointing to have to agree to a Bill of this kind in view of the very specific statement made in Command Paper 6715 of December, 1945, which dealt with the postwar code of pay for members of the forces. The very first paragraph of this Command Paper said:
The present arrangements, which are extremely complex and result in unjustifiable disparities between the Services, have been thoroughly overhauled.
It would appear from this Bill that the system has not yet been thoroughly overhauled; otherwise it would not be necessary to bring forward such a Bill the Second Reading of which we are discussing today.
I was not able to follow the Parliamentary Secretary when he said that the Army and the Air Force were to come into line

with the Navy in respect of the provisions now introduced. That means now that these two other Service Departments will have to bring about the same result as is attempted here today by Amendment to their annual Bills. Surely, that is a very cumbrous and complicated way of doing things. Now that we have the Ministry of Defence, which is to co-ordinate the three Services as far as possible, one of the things which is as capable of co-ordination as anything else, is the system of pay and allowances and the rights of the dependants of Servicemen. It seems to me quite unnecessary that there should be three separate pay offices manned by three separate staffs, and I hope that one of these days some really unified system of pay and allowances for all three Services will be finally established, which would make all this kind of thing we are discussing today superfluous.

11.41 a.m.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I cannot altogether join in the presentation of the bouquets that the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty has had this morning, because I am not entirely satisfied with his statement. It seems to me that he concentrated too much on the voluntary allotment, and that he said very little about the compulsory deductions that may he made from a Serviceman's pay in respect of a court order. Now, in this House we have always been very jealous of any deductions from a Serviceman's pay. Before we took that attitude it was the case in the Army, in particular, in some regiments, that men were getting only a penny a day; after the various snippets had been made out of his pay, an unfortunate man might be getting only a penny a day. We should look with considerable jealousy at any attempt to deduct unjustly from the pay of a sailor. The Government, I think, should always justify why the Servicemen should be put into a different position from that of civilians in this matter—of from that of the Civil Service. If the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary had one of these orders made against him—and I am not suggesting that tie ever would—he would not have the amount of the order deducted from his salary. The ordinary processes of law should apply, and the onus must, I think, always be on the Government to say why Servicemen should be put into this peculiar position.
"The Bill as it is framed—under Clause —is very wide. Orders of court can be operated by the deduction from pay, apparently, by the decree of any court in His Majesty's dominions. His Majesty's dominions are very wide, and they comprise over 500 million people, and are scattered over most of the world; and yet in any court in any of those dominions an order can be made against an officer, a sailor or marine, and that court order may be enforced by the Admiralty. In some of these places, I know only too well, the standard of justice and administration is not as yet of a very high calibre; and yet we in this House are giving the Admiralty authority to deduct from a sailor's pay the amount of an order made by any court anywhere in His Majesty's dominions. Then, again, we are giving the Admiralty power to deduct from the sailor's pay the costs and expenses incurred in any such court anywhere in His Majesty's dominions. These costs may be very great. Until the Government take a rational and proper view of court costs, and really make up their mind what they are going to do about them, I object to this position. Today, costs in this country are exorbitant, and the ordinary citizen is prejudiced to a very large degree by the fact that these costs are so high. The unfortunate sailor, under these conditions, would find that his pay, perhaps for years to come might be crippled by the fact that he has to have an order made against him in one of these courts. I think there is very little justification for that.
In Clause 2 there is provision for restriction on the discontinuance of these allotments. That, again, is surely an interference with the freedom of the individual. If a man, perhaps, with good cause, wishes to discontinue his allotment—and, after all, an ordinary man does not wish to do so without good cause—if he wishes to discontinue his allotment why should he be bound to prove to some Admiralty nominee that he is justified in so doing? Why should sailors be put in a position different from that of anyone else? We are coming to a pretty pass if a man cannot conduct his private affairs in this matter without the permission of an Admiralty nominee. I shall be told, no doubt, by the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, or by whoever is to reply to the

Debate, that these conditions are necessary because it is difficult to collect money from officers, sailors or marines. He will tell me that they are constantly on the high seas, and have few assets. I presume that this is the only real justification for this provision. Well, they certainly have as many assets as many others of His Majesty's subjects in these days, and they have no more of a roving life than some others of His Majesty's subjects in these days; if this provision is to be applied to Servicemen for this reason, then it ought to be applied to a very much larger number of people, in many classes and walks of life.
I think we must treat the Serviceman as an adult, as an honorable man, and as a man who is well able to handle his own affairs. Our object on this side of the House is to make the Services comparable in every way with any other walk of life. To treat the Servicemen in this old-fashioned, restrictive, and, in many ways, I suggest, objectionable manner, is to my mind unjustified, unless the Minister who is to reply can give us a better explanation than the Minister who moved the Second Reading of the Bill.

11.47 a.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Until the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) spoke, I thought we were going to have another of those very pleasant interludes in the House when we discuss naval matters. We would all agree that they provide more cordial times than are seen on some other occasions. I think, however, that the hon. Member for South Croydon did make one very important point, when he stressed the consideration that these legal proceedings can take place Tri courts of His Majesty's Dominions at great distance, and that where that happens, if this Bill goes through as it is at present drafted, men will have no chance—I would say that in 99 cases out of a 100 they would not—of being able to be represented during such proceedings. Every speaker who has spoken in this Debate has raised the question of repealing Section 98 of the Naval Discipline Act without making provision in this Bill for the retention of the men's right, either to be present themselves or to have legal advisers in their places.
That does seem to me to be a most important thing, and the most important right that a man can have, particularly when the Government, as they do in Clause 2, propose that these allotments shall not be stopped except with the permission of the Admiralty. If allotments and maintenance of wives and children are to be placed on this basis—and I think it is right— then the Admiralty must make provision so that miscarriages of justice cannot occur. By repealing Section 98 of the Naval Discipline Act without retaining this safeguard, I think they are laying themselves open to miscarriages of justice, and taking a very valuable safeguard from the men in His Majesty's Navy. I hope that the Minister who is to reply to the Debate will tell us that, before the Committee stage, this part of that Subsection is to be incorporated in this Bill.
The other point made throughout this Debate has been that of the maximum sums to be deducted. As I understood the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, he said that he anticipated that the Orders in Council would introduce the provision that no man should be stopped of more than a quarter of his pay. That, I understood, was the level, and he wanted this matter to be settled in future by proportionate rather than by maximum sums. There are arguments on both sides, but whatever it is, I feel that it should be incorporated in the Bill. Let the Minister introduce an Amendment to this Bill, which will safeguard the man and give the flexibility he desires. It is a bad thing that we should hand over the duty of safeguarding people in His Majesty's Forces to the Government. I am not arguing that the Financial Secretary is a bad Financial Secretary, but it is wrong in principle for this House to hand over powers of this nature to the Executive. I should also like to ask the Financial Secretary, as a number of other hon. Members have asked, whether we cannot have more simple Bills from his Department. The interlocking legislation effected by these four pages is terrific, and if only there could be an Explanatory Memorandum, how much better it would be. I hope that the next time the Financial Secretary comes down to the House of Commons to move the Second Reading of a Bill, he will be able to say not only that it is short and non-controversial, but also that it is simple We, on this side of the

House, agree in principle with this Bill. but we trust that the Amendments pressed for in all quarters of the House will receive attention before the Committee stage. should like to congratulate the Admiralty on introducing a Measure which will do much to help the wives and children of members of His Majesty's Navy, and also give greater security to the men them selves.

11.52 a.m.

Mr. Dugdale: I am gratified with the reception this Bill has had, and I fully sympathise with those Members who have taken exception to its complex nature. If it is any consolation to the House, I can assure Members that I have suffered equally from its complications, and have had a considerable amount of trouble in mastering its details, if, indeed, I have mastered them now. Perhaps I may first be allowed to say how much I regret the absence of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas). In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble), I agree that there should be, as he and other hon. Members have said, an Explanatory Memorandum in Bills of this character, just as there is for longer Bills. While I was considering this Bill, I sometimes thought that I wished I was introducing, let us say, the Electricity Nationalisation Bill which seemed to me to be much more simple. With regard to the question of limits of liability, the figures we mean to put in the Order in Council are these: three-sevenths for an officer, two-thirds for a petty officer, and three-quarters for an ordinary rating. I think it is better that we should have a proportion rather than a fixed sum.

Commander Noble: Can the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty say whether these are the proportions to he retained or deducted?

Mr. Dugdale: They are the limit of liability to be deducted. It is approximately the same amount as for the other two Services, and we intend, by the time we have finished, that all three Services will have the same system of deductions.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Is it anticipated that up to three-quarters of a rating's pay can be deducted under the Order in Council to be issued?

Mr. Dugdale: Yes. Sir, that is correct.


In regard to the question of safeguards, we intend to put safeguards in the Order in Council, but if hon. Members would prefer them in the Bill, I am perfectly prepared to see that they are put in during the Committee stage rather than in the Order in Council. I think that that will satisfy Members who have been disturbed about this matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea also raised the question of delay. I can tell him that the money will, if necessary, be refunded if it is found the man was right and his wife was wrong. I will look into the question raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) in regard to the limited class of pensioners domiciled abroad. There may considerable difficulty in bringing them in, but I will see if they can be brought in, and if it is possible, I will do so during the Committee stage. The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) referred to complications in general in the system of pay and allowances. That is far outside the scope of this Bill. I agree that they are complicated matters, but we certainly cannot deal with them this morning. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) took exception to the Bill in a large number of respects, and among others was the jurisdiction of courts in His Majesty's Dominions. That is a point which cannot be dealt with here. We have to accept their jurisdiction, just as we have to accept jurisdiction in our own country. I cannot this morning pass comment on the system of jurisdiction in the different parts of His Majesty's Dominions.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Does the Minister not realise what is going to happen? He is thinking of the Dominions as they exist today, but with the possible expansion in the future of the number of Dominions, he will find that the type of courts in which these cases are heard may be very different from the courts in the Dominions today.

Mr. Dugdale: I do not wish to be drawn into a discussion on the possible expansion of His Majesty's Dominions. That is a question which would have to be decided on a much higher level, and in rather greater detail. My hon. Friend also said that normal men do not discontinue their allotments without good cause,

and that is a very important point. The answer is that we are not proposing to legislate for the normal man, but for the abnormal man. The number of cases we have had to deal with during the war is comparatively small, and we hope that the number will be smaller now, but in view of the fact that there are these abnormal men, I hope that we may be allowed to have this Bill so that wives may no longer suffer as a result of neglect by this particular class of men.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next. — [Mr. Simmons]

Orders of the Day — APPELLATE JURISDICTION [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the appointment of additional Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, it is expedient to authorise the charging on and payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any amount by which the sums charged on and payable out of that Fund under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, in respect of the salaries and pensions of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are increased by reason of additional appointments made under the said Act of the present Session.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

12.2 p.m.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2. — (Short title.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I wish to say a word or two about a point I raised on the Second Reading.

The Deputy-Chairman: We have already passed Clause 1, and Clause 2 is purely citative.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I was trying to catch your eye a few moments ago, Mr. Beaumont.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Member is too late. We have already passed Clause 1.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

12.4 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I would like to raise the point which I raised on the Second Reading, namely, as to the intervals between the days of hearing that take place when an appeal is being heard in the House of Lords. As I indicated on the Second Reading, an appeal, when it is called for hearing, may be heard say on the Monday morning and then on the morning of the next day, but very often there is then an adjournment from that clay until the Thursday or Friday when the appeal may be continued on only parts of those two days as well. As those who practice in that tribunal have experienced, as I said on the Second Reading, I am not criticising that or complaining, but I would like some elucidation on this rather important point. In the law courts, for example, they sit from day to day, and there is continuity. The advantage of that to all concerned is beyond doubt. I would like to know whether it is possible for the same procedure to take place in the House of Lords. I realise, of course, that the House of Lords has legislative, as well as judicial functions, and that that House cannot sit as a legislative chamber and as a judicial tribunal at one and the same time in one and the same place, but that does not seem to be an adequate reason for the House not sitting in different places concurrently to perform both respective functions—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain to me how his remarks conform to what is in this Bill, which is solely for the purpose of increasing the number of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: With great respect, Sir, the Bill seeks authority to appoint two further Law Lords. It was explained to the House that delay was being caused in the hearing of appeals, and I am addressing my observation to that fact. I am seeking to show that incidental to, and wrapped up with, this

question of the appointment of two further Law Lords in order to avoid delay, there is this further matter which I desire to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a very interesting point, but it is one that might have been raised on the Second Reading. We are now dealing with what is actually in the Bill, namely, the question of increasing the number of Law Lords from seven to nine.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I raised it on the Second Reading, but the point was not dealt with by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General before the Question was put.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be true, but that is no justification for raising it on the Third Reading.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not propose to resist your Ruling, Sir, but my submission is that it is germane to the Third Reading. However, if you say that it is not I cannot proceed, but I do ask the Solicitor-General if he will deal with this point when he replies—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, the Solicitor-General equally will not be allowed to be out of Order.

12.7 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I realise that it is difficult to be in Order on this Bill, but I believe that even with nine Law Lords this tribunal cannot act properly, because, from its very nature, it is an anachronism, and ought to be swept out of existence. I do not know whether that is out of Order

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is perfectly well aware that it is entirely out of Order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1—(Shortened form of birth certificate.)

12.9 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham): I beg to move, in page 1, line at the end, to insert:
Provided that any person applying for the first time for a certificate as authorised under


section thirty of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1874, and who has paid for it the prescribed fee shall be entitled also to a certificate in the form prescribed under subsection (2) of this section without further charge.
This Amendment is in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), and as it is not my legislative child I think I shall have to ask for a shortened form of certificate for it. The purpose of this Amendment is quite simple. It simply requires that people who apply for the first time for an ordinary certificate, and pay the prescribed fee for it, shall automatically be entitled to the shortened form of certificate provided for in this Bill, without a further charge. It seems a commonsense suggestion, and I hope will be incorporated in the Bill.

Major Legge-Bourke: I think the meaning of this Amendment will be obvious to the Committee, but I would like to mention that under Section 30 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1874, the fee was only three pence. I have been trying to find out when that fee was altered, as obviously it has been altered, but I have been unable to discover it. I hope the Minister will be able to accept the Amendment, and as I made the intention clear in my speech in the Second Reading Debate, I will not enlarge further upon it now.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I shall have to resist this Amendment on two grounds. First, it does not do what the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) and the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) intend it to do, and secondly, even if it did so, it would be undesirable. I do not blame the hon. Gentlemen for the fact that the Amendment does not do what they want it to do, because this is an extremely complicated field, and it is not easy to draft an. Amendment to do what they want to do. The three penny certificate referred to is a certificate given merely to certify that the statutory duty of registering the birth has been complied with. It is not a birth certificate. The effect of the Amendment would be that, every time a three penny certificate were asked for, the applicant would have the right to receive the sixpenny certificate as well. Obviously,

that is not what the hon. Members desire.
I must, however, resist the Amendment on much wider grounds. It would, in fact, denigrate the status of the certificate itself if it were given freely. It is very important to remember that the reason for the Bill is to provide a certificate of sufficient validity, and if may say so, sufficient respectability, for it to be accepted widely, and for people not to require the longer certificate. I think it will be accepted almost as a general principle that things which are obtained for nothing are not regarded quite in the same way as those for which some fee has had to be paid, and if it were necessary to pay 2s. 7d. for the longer certificate and the shorter certificate were given free, I am afraid the general impression would be created that the shorter certificate was not of very much value. Therefore, I believe that on psychological grounds and bearing in mind always why it is that we have the Bill, it would be undesirable to have the free certificate.
There is another reason of an administrative nature against the Amendment. I am informed that it would very much add to the complications. These certificates are given in some circumstances by registrars who are paid fees for giving certificates and in other circumstances to registrars who are paid salaries, and the Amendment would mean that every time there would be a complication to the local authority in finding out how many certificates were actually given, because the registrar would have to account to the local authority in respect of each certificate given. If the Amendment were accepted, and if, in each instance, there were a free certificate given, the work of checking would be much more difficult. I hope that, having received this explanation, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Nicholson: I imagine that the administrative difficulty mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman would not be insuperable. The point I want to put to him is that the free certificate would be given only once, and it would not duplicate the work very much. As for the suggestion that it would not be valued because it would be given free, the person on whose account the certificate would be taken out would probably be an infant at the time, and therefore, I do not think this psycho-


Logical argument applies very strongly. Surely, this Amendment would make the whole thing easier.

Mr. Bevan: That is not true.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I am disappointed that, even if the Minister of Health has not been able to accept the Amendment on account of its form, he has not given some encouragement that a properly drafted Amendment to deal with this matter might be acceptable to the Government. I think that, as a result of the Second Reading Debate a week ago, it was generally appreciated that, although the idea of a shortened certificate was excellent, the danger was that the production of the shorter certificate would of itself give rise to a presumption that the child was either illegitimate or adopted, and the general wish was expressed in all parts of the House that the shortened form of certificate should come into general use.
It was suggested that Members of Parliament should set an example by themselves applying for a shortened form of birth certificate, there being a presumption that, at any rate in regard to Members of Parliament, a considerable proportion of them are neither illegitimate nor adopted. If we are to get this shortened certificate into general circulation, what better way of doing so could there be than that proposed in the Amendment, which is to issue a certificate in the shortened form alongside every certificate in the longer form and when the longer form of certificate is first applied for? The right hon. Gentleman said that things which are given for nothing are not valued, and, generally speaking, we would all accept that as a principle, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Godfrey Nicholson) said, the person who receives this gift from the State of a shortened certificate, a piece of paper, will generally be an infant child, and an infant child cannot appreciate the difference between something which it has earned and something which has been given. I am not very much impressed by that argument against the spirit of the Amendment.
The other argument used was that the proposal in the Amendment would "denigrate" the status of the new certificate. I confess I am not clear what the right hon. Gentleman means by that. We want

the new certificate to be in common use. We want it to be the ordinary form of certificate which is produced in the ordinary way. We want the longer certificate to be reserved for those cases where special circumstances arise, where, for instance, there may be the question of entitlement to property, or, on entry into the Civil Service, there may be the question whether both parents were British born. I think it will still be required for that purpose, because, as far as I am aware the requirement still holds good that entrants to the Civil Service must be British born. That will not appear, as far as I am aware, on the shortened form of certificate. I am disappointed with the Minister's attitude. It is obvious that we cannot press this Amendment to a Division, since it is in a defective form, but I am sure that other hon. Members besides those who sit on these Benches will be disappointed by the attitude the Minister has taken.

Mrs. Leah Manning: I wish to press this Amendment upon the Minister. I am myself neither illegitimate nor adopted, and I am prepared to apply for a shortened form, of certificate. I hope that the Minister will, if he can find some way of overcoming the defective nature of this Amendment, accept the spirit of the proposal made in it. I am sure he realises that the feeling that was in the minds of all hon. Members in the Second Reading Debate was that this shortened certificate should not be anything that would place the person who wanted to buy it in an invidious position.
The fact that the certificate will be bought, probably later in the child's life as it would be in the event of the majority of children, may bring the certificate into disrepute. There are children who have to take such a certificate to school when they enter for their secondary school, and I have many friends who are in great difficulty. Some have adopted their own illegitimate children, and they are anxious about the position. Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen opposite did not know that was possible. It has become possible recently, and a number of women have adopted their own illegitimate children. They are looking forward to this certificate. If the shorter certificate would serve for general purposes, then people would be able to put the longer certificate in a


glass case or away with their other documents, and the shorter certificate would be the one in ordinary use. It should be part of our duty as citizens to encourage the use of the shorter certificate, and I hope that the Minister, from that point of view, will look at this matter again. I cannot believe in the excuses which he has put forward this morning, because there is really nothing in them. The shorter certificate will meet the purpose which we are all anxious to achieve.

Mr. Bevan: I am disappointed with the speech of my hon. Friend, because I should have thought that the Bill would have been welcomed for its main purpose, and not detracted from by the fact that it does not go very much further than the situation which now exists in Scotland. We were able to bring this Measure forward because it was discovered that in Scotland the payment of 7d. for the shorter certificate had popularised it, and I would not dream of running the risk of making any modification for England and Wales that might result in underming its popularity. I think that we would be running the risk of taking away from the value of the shorter certificate if we were to make a distinction between Scotland and England and Wales in this respect. Its wide use will be determined by the fact that Government Departments will accept the shorter certificate. No one can suggest that there is any hardship involved in paying 6d. for the shorter certificate, and I hope that every one will use the shorter certificate for all the purposes for which it is designed. The fact of illegitimacy will he obscured by the universal use of it. I do not see any case for making a distinction between England and Wales and Scotland in this respect.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am rather amazed by the Minister's remarks. It seems only right that those of us who feel that the position could he made better should try to make it so. He has criticised us on the ground that our proposal will detract from the popularity of the certificate. That, however, is a matter of opinion. It is the opinion of many hon. Members that a great deal of improvement is required, if the object of this Bill is to be served. The Bill was given a welcome on Second Reading, and I myself welcomed it, but I believe that it could be made a great deal better. As my
right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has said, the whole success of this Bill depends on how widespread the use of the qualified certificate becomes. The great drawback of not encouraging people when they register birth to take out the shorter certificate is that all these certificates will be dated, and the shorter form of certificate will vary in date.
If the shortened form of certificate is taken out in 20 or 30 years' time by people born sometime after this Bill becomes an Act, it seems to me that there will be a suspicion that the certificate was obtained for some nefarious or other purpose, and I think that would be disastrous for the success of this Bill. Any suspicion which the shortened form of certificate caused would do harm. We are proposing that encouragement should be given to people to take out the shortened form of certificate when registering a child's birth. I can understand that the Minister cannot accept the Amendment as worded, and I am sorry to have misled the Committee in putting it down in a defective form, but I believe that the principle behind it has wide approval, and I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter, and, perhaps, in another place, something might be done to achieve our purpose.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Dr. Stephen Taylor: On Second Reading, I raised the question of whether this Clause covered the case of foundling children whose exact date of birth was not known. This kind of certificate is registered sometimes as "on or about" the date of birth, and that would have to be reproduced in the shortened form of certificate. I asked the Minister at that time, if the Bill gave him the power to omit the words "on or about," and I understand 'hat it does not give him the power to do that. I have not put down an Amendment to this Clause asking that he should be given this power, for one substantial reason. The number of foundling children involved is, I understand, very small—about 40 compared with 40,000 illegitimate children a year, and any attempt to help these people, which, at the same time, damaged the interests of a larger number whom this Bill seeks to help would he unjustifiable.
It has been pointed out that if the Minister had power to alter any of the particulars introduced into the new certificate, as against the old, and the alteration was to omit the words "on or about," that might introduce suspicion about the validity of the shortened certificate, and for that reason I have not sought to get the Minister to take this power. I think that the correct approach to this would be to tackle the original certificate. The Minister has power probably to issue regulations to registrars to nominate the date exactly, rather than in the vague manner in which they have done in the past. Apparently, when children are discovered under the age of about three weeks, the registrar may use his discretion as to the date of birth which he enters in the original birth certificate. Where the child is over three weeks, the registrar has to refer to the Registrar-General for him to give a ruling as to the date of birth. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have a look at the original Acts to see if he can adjust them, so that the registrar may make an exact entry, and the exact date is introduced into the shortened certificate without those qualifying words. I cannot see any reason for having the qualifying words, since, for every practical purpose, the date named, even without qualification, must be deemed as the birth date whether for calculations of pensions or insurance, because there is no other date to go by. I would urge my right hon. Friend to look at the Regulations under which these entries are made and to see whether he can put this small point right.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: May I add a word on this subject, to induce the Minister to take the action suggested by the hon. Member for Barnet (Dr. Taylor)? I hope it will be found possible to apply the principle of the Bill to the other, most deserving and unfortunate class of foundling children. We all know how children who are adopted feel under some disability because, sooner or later, they find out they are orphans or illegitimate. The foundling child is in a worse plight when he discovers not only that his parentage was unfortunate, but that his parents were actually willing to leave him under an archway or on a doorstep. I used to live in St. Marylebone, and the guardians there had a way of dealing with foundlings which was rather—

The Chairman (Major Milner): I do not think the hon. Member's present line of argument has any relevance to the Clause. The Question before the Committee is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting some action by the Minister which does not come within the scope of the Bill at all, and is therefore out of Order.

Mr. Hastings: I hoped that it would be possible to add words to the Clause between now and the Report stage to bring within the Bill, and to help, the unfortunate class of children to whom we have been referring. If the suggestion is out of Order I will sit down.

The Chairman: The proper course for the hon. Member to have adopted would have been for him to put an Amendment upon the paper for the Committee stage.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I should like to point out to my right hon. Friend a fact which might operate as a deterrent to popularising the shortened certificate. Superintendent registrars and registrars depend upon fees, which vary according to the number of certificates which they issue. It is clear that they will be out of pocket if people prefer the 6d. certificate to the 2s. 7d. certificate. Can my right hon. Friend make sure that registrars will not be influenced in that way, and that they will have an incentive to popularise the shortened certificate?

Mr. Bevan: It will be quite easy by administrative action to see that that condition of affairs does not arise, and I will certainly keep in mind the point which has just been brought to my attention by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton). With regard to the other point, I have the deepest sympathy towards the foundling children. They are in the worst position of the lot. I am in a quandary, however. I would like to protect the foundling child as well as the others, if I could find a way to do it. I have thought about the matter deeply but I can see no way of protecting the foundling which might not withdraw protection from the others.
The Bill has nothing to do with the original entry. It provides a short certificate which reproduces certain particulars of the original entry, but it does not falsify them. If the short certificate said that a


child was born on a certain day when the original entry showed that that was not the case, the short certificate would be false. As soon as it became known that the shortened certificate was not a faithful reproduction from the original, the status of the shortened certificate would fall. If there were some way of getting over the difficulty I would certainly adopt it. The smallness of the number of children involved is no justification for not attending to them. If we can prevent injustice to one person we ought to do so. There is an old English roundelay which runs as follows:
One is one and all alone
And ever more shall be so.
It varies in different parts of the country, but it is very old, and it shows how deeply sympathetic mankind is towards the isolated individual.
If I can find some way of meeting this difficulty I will certainly adopt it, but I am afraid I cannot see my way to do so at present. I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Dr. Taylor) for not putting an Amendment down and so adding to my embarrassment still further. I will see what the possibilities are about the original entry, but I must make it clear that the Registrar-General and his colleagues are very anxious to preserve the statistical purity of the entry.

Dr. Taylor: I do not think that the statistical purity of the entry is disturbed by adding the words "on or about" as a footnote to the entry. It will not need to be reproduced upon the copy.

Mr. Bevan: To protect these children their record must he assimilated to that of other children and we must be able to give a date of birth. If we cannot find the actual date we say "on or about". I will see whether it is possible to give some protection to these children in the original entry.

Major Legge-Bourke: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility of assuming the birth of a child within the nearest half month, so that the child probably born after the 15th of the month would have the 15th as its date of birth? Could he not make an assumption of the date of birth within the nearest half month?

Major Cecil Poole: Before my right hon. Friend replies to that suggestion, may I ask whether it would not increase the number of people whose birthday fell on 1st April?

Mr. Bevan: It would still be an assumption and not an ascertained fact and, therefore, we should be in trouble about it. If medicine were an exact science, it would be possible to say on what date a foundling child had been born, and we could give that date, but it is not an exact science and, therefore, to record an assumption as an ascertained fact would, of course, be wrong. However, I have just said that I will look at the possibilities, though they do not seem to me to be very fertile at the moment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE. — (Certificates not subject to provisions of Stamp Act, 1891.)

For the purposes of this Act certificates issued shall not be subject to the provisions of section sixty-four of the Stamp Act,1891. —[Major Legge-Bourke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Major Legge-Bourke: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am moving this Clause largely in order to obtain information. I understand now, since I put down the new Clause, that in fact the new certificates do not come under this particular Section, but there is one thing I hope the Minister will be able to tell the Committee, namely, what steps he is taking to prevent forgeries. As I understand it, the great advantage of the Stamp Duty applicable to the full certificate is that it is some prevention of forgery. We have to realise that the shortened form of certificate might be a great deal more easily forged than the fuller type, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell the House what steps he is taking to prevent that. He has mentioned already, in replying to the first Amendment, that he is most anxious to keep the reputation of the certificates as high as possible, and I am sure that is right, but I would ask him to remember that we have an enormous number of new citizens coming into this country, many of whom have very uncertain periods in their previous


lives. Only on 3rd January, 13,000 Jewish refugee children who suffered Nazi persecution came in from Germany, and if this new shortened form of certificate is to be so very easy, I do not see that we have very much security for those who are British-born and who have lived here all their lives. I believe it is essential to keep the reputation of the certificates as high as possible. As the right hon. Gentleman may be aware, I have urged the Government to welcome as many refugees and displaced persons into this country as possible, and I ask the Minister to consider that some of these young people who will get naturalisation before they are 21 may, it these certificates are easily forged, come into possession of them so that no one can know what their antecedents are. I hope, therefore, the Minister will tell the Committee what measures he is proposing to take to safeguard these new certificates and prevent them being forged.

Mr. Bevan: As the hon. and gallant Member said, he has discovered that the Amendment is not necessary, because the certificate does not carry Stamp Duty. The object of the Amendment was to remove the Stamp Duty if indeed it was applicable, but now the hon. and gallant Member asks how we shall protect the certificate if we do not have tile Stamp Duty. How did he propose to protect the certificate if he took the Stamp Duty away?

Major Legge-Bourke: I am quite prepared to tell the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bevan: I am not making a point of that, First of all, of course, the signature will be some protection. I am informed that it would be unwise for me to state the other precautions that will he taken, because if I stated them those who wish to defraud us could do so more easily. There are precautions that it would not be in the public interest to disclose, and I think, with that assurance, the Committee will have to be satisfied.

12.45 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that we do not like too much secrecy, and I know he is somewhat reluctant at times to give as much information as we on this side would like, but I quite appreciate his reasons for not giving it today. AU I would suggest is that special forms

of printing and paper should be borne in mind and that every precaution should be taken to prevent forgery. In view of the assurance the right hon. Gentleman has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION EXPENSES (AMENDMENT) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge]

Orders of the Day — SURPLUS GENERATORS

12.49 p.m.

Mr. Orbach: On a point of Order. Would it be convenient for me now to put the Question I asked by Private Notice earlier, namely, whether the Minister of Supply will cancel the sale by auction of the surplus generators and diesel engines which has been advertised, and as an emergency measure loan without delay these power producing plants to industrial establishments on a priority basis?

The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): I regret that owing to a misunderstanding I was not in my place to answer the Private Notice Question which the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. Orbach) put to me earlier in the day, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement in answer to it.
The generators in question are 250 trailer mounted sets included in an auction of some 5,000 motor vehicles and cycles, which began on 3rd February at Spanhoe, near Kettering, and will continue until 10th March. These generators were due to be sold in March. In view of the fuel situation it was decided to sell them next Monday and the following days. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power and we are satisfied that this is the best way to bring the generators into immediate use.

Mr. Eden: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on a point of Order? While the House will readily accept the right hon. Gentleman's desire to answer this Question and nobody makes complaint about the circumstances that arose, I do not think, with respect, that there is any precedent for answering a Private Notice Question at the end of Business. I lo not know whether we should not safeguard the position in that respect for the future.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I understood that the Minister was proposing to make his statement forthwith, which would have been the proper course.

Orders of the Day — FUEL AND POWER CUTS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE)

12.51 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr, James Griffiths): With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on a matter which has been giving some concern, namely, the effect of the waiting days' requirements of the present Unemployment Insurance Act on the large numbers of persons who are having to claim unemployment benefit during the present emergency. I have decided to use powers given to me in the National Insurance Act, 1946, to anticipate the operation of the waiting day provisions of that Act. I propose, therefore, to make regulations forthwith to bring the present Unemployment Insurance scheme into line with the new Act in this respect.
The effect will be that any waiting days served on or after Monday, 10th February, 1947, will rank for payment of benefit in cases where the claimant is unemployed for 12 days or more. Where the claimant is not unemployed for 12 days or more in a run but suffers from broken periods of unemployment amounting in all to 12 days, they may be joined up in certain circumstances under the existing continuity rules, but in order that payment may become due for the first three days, all the 12 days of unemployment must occur within 13 weeks as is provided in the new Act.

Mr. Eden: I feel sure the House will approve the action of the right hon. Gentleman in coming down to the House and making

this announcement here before the House disperses. It really is of importance that in these difficult days the House should be kept informed on all matters which are of deep concern to our constituents. On the merits of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, perhaps I might observe that, as has been previously stated, so far as wall considered action is taken by the Government to deal with the present ever widening emergency, the right hon. Gentleman can count on our support for that action because it is all-important that the nation should emerge as early as possible from its present trouble, and it is equally important to ensure that those troubles cause as little suffering as may be to the population of our land. As it seems to me, this proposal of the right hon. Gentleman will have that effect—that is to say, it will reduce the suffering that might otherwise have occurred—and, therefore, we on this side of the House are glad the Government have taken that decision and will support it. I know the right hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me if I add that this does not preclude our criticising some other features of the present situation at a later date.

Mr. Osbert Peake: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question arising out of his statement? While nobody will quarrel with him for bringing into operation the provisions of the National Insurance Act, which Parliament has only recently approved, in relation to waiting days, is he assured that he can make regulations today or tomorrow which will have retroactive operation to Past Monday?

Mr. J. Griffiths: I have taken advice on that very point, and I am assured that the action I am taking is within the powers given to me in the Act for bringing portions of the Act as desirable into operation in this transitional period.

Orders of the Day — HOLLOWAY PRISON (CONDITIONS)

12.55 p.m.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: In dealing with the condition of prisoners in Holloway Prison, I think it will be agreed nowadays by the public generally, and certainly by the present Government, that the desire in the treatment of prisoners is that it should be remedial and not purely punitive. We have come a long way from the old days when people


were treated in prison in such a way that their lives were made a hell and it was hoped that the deterrent effect would be so great that they would be terrified into never committing another offence. Of course, it was soon found that did not work, and a good many years ago a different attitude was adopted, but, unfortunately, practice has not always kept up with theory and that is why I am bringing forward this question. I am dealing only with Holloway Prison because I have full facts about it, and that does not mean to say that some other prisons are not better in the matters with which I will deal and that some other prisons are not worse. Prisons vary a good deal, and I think most of them need the standard to be raised.
To go back to Holloway, one of the things that seems to me particularly serious is that no privileges are allowed in any circumstances for the first three months. This applies to prisoners serving any term. If the term is shorter than three months, then it is the whole period. If it is a sentence between that and a life sentence, it lasts for the first three months. The reason why this is such a serious thing is that it includes all the prisoners whom it would be most likely to be possible to rehabilitate—first offenders and prisoners who are in for short sentences and have not committed any grave offences. As has so many times been said so recently in this House, in a very difficult life—as it must be admitted life is today for many people, and many women—people slip up and find themselves landed in Holloway. It may be that a woman has stolen because she has a sick child at home and wants to get something she is unable to get from a medical certificate or in any other way. Possibly she has seen it and taken it from a shop. There are quite a lot of cases of people who cannot be described as criminal in any real way but who get landed in Holloway Gaol with many troubles on their shoulders.
I want to suggest what it must be like to them during the first three months. Many of them are working-class people who have, practically speaking, never in their lives been alone. We have great troubles with overcrowding but this is the other side to that picture and it applies to many of the people who go to prison. Never in the course of their lives have

they been alone in a room for more than five minutes. They go to prison feeling very sorry, very humiliated and utterly miserable, and perhaps with grave home troubles. They do not know what is happening to their families, and whether their families are suffering severely because they are not there. These women, whatever their circumstances, are finally locked up at 4·30 p.m., and see no one between then and when they are called at 6 o'clock next morning. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame."] Can hon. Members imagine the feelings of these people, the brooding, the misery, the wretchedness, of sitting there hour after hour in these days in the cold, because cold is inevitable, and even people in good homes are cold? They are cold and miserable, with nothing to do but to brood over their miseries. It is perfectly true that they are able to get three books a week. But very often they are not the books they want to read, and often they are not the kind of people who do read. They sit and think. During the evening they go to bed, and they have had nothing to eat or drink—this applies to every person in Holloway Gaol—after 4 o'clock in the afternoon, until the next morning.

Mr. Stokes (Ipswich): Torture.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: "Torture" is the right word. They have a reasonably good meal served at 4 o'clock. I do not complain, in these days of shortages, about the general diet in Holloway. But I complain most bitterly that the last meal, consisting of about three slices of bread, a very small pat of margarine, and sometimes a piece of cheese, or a tiny piece of spam, and a cup of quite good cocoa, should be the last meal served for 14 hours. Every prisoner should have tea at teatime. It is all wrong that tea should be only served once a day, at 6 a.m. That is the only time in the 24 hours that any prisoner in Holloway Prison has tea. They all have a pint of tea at 6 a.m., with their breakfast. There is precious little we women do not know about how far tea can be made to go in these days, and I cannot believe that the whole ration of tea is used up in the pint served in the early morning.
If we are to rehabilitate these prisoners, we must provide certain reasonable comforts. One of those comforts should be that tea should be given at 4'oclock, if that is the time when the meal is taken,


and certainly later in the evening there should he another "unlock", as it is called, and the pint of cocoa, which is now provided at 4 o'clock, should be provided at 7.30, or 8 p.m., with something additional to eat. I would not mind so much if there was not anything additional to eat, if the prisoners could have that nourishing hot drink at 7.30 p.m. They would then be able to go to sleep. Ex-prisoners have said to me time and again, "Somehow or other one gets warm, and. goes to sleep ultimately."
In the first three months there arc no privileges of any sort. That means that, although the prisoners go to work—and I think the associated labour and the workshops are good—they cannot receive any payment. They cannot go to the shop, which is like what we used to call the "tuckshop" when we were at school. In no circumstances in the first three months is it possible for the prisoners to have their sweet ration. Our diet today is laid down pretty carefully by the Ministry of Food. Not only, is it decided: on what is obtainable, but also on a calorific and energy-making basis. The sweet ration is not provided for no particular reason; it is included because it is needed for the health of the people. People who are feeling very miserable and cold—cold largely because they are so miserable, as well as because the cells are not very warm—crave tremendously for sweet stuffs, because they are energizing. For that first bitter three months they cannot get the sweets, nor in any circumstances a cigarette, but are locked up at 4·30, after the last meal, for 14 hours of brooding and misery. That cannot be remedial, or rehabilitating. If we are to have moral rehabilitation, there must be physical rehabilitation. If there is one thing which has been proved by modern medicine, it is that physical rehabilitation is necessary for moral rehabilitation. I believe it to be true, although it is not provable, that there is not a free woman in this country who does not have a hot drink during the evening, certainly in the winter. I know the Minister wit] say—and I know it is accurate, because of the answers I have received to Questions—that shortage of staff is the reason the prisoners cannot get anything later than 4·30. But never in the history of Holloway Prison has a later meal been provided. It is not a wartime measure.
nor an emergency measure. Throughout the history of that prison there has never been a later meal. Although it may not be possible to do it tomorrow, I want the Home Office to put this as a first priority to be provided as soon as possible.
Every prisoner should be able to earn from the beginning. Rehabilitation should start as soon as the prisoner enters the prison. Those who are most capable of rehabilitation are likely to be the first offenders and those with short sentences, because they have committed very small offences. In actual practice, the system works out in what seems to be completely the wrong way. The long-term offenders, the old lags who come back over and over again, are the prisoners who get the most privileges. I am told that the reason is that the life is so unendurable that they could not continue in prison unless they got privileges. If this is true, it is all the more reason why the miserable people coming in for the first time, and obviously suffering much more, should get similar privileges.
I ask the Minister whether it is possible to turn things round the other way, and to start off all prisoners with regular privileges. After all, what are the privileges? They are not very wonderful. The privileges are the chance of going out to classes, or to some form of recreation, in the evening, and of being able to earn a very small sum of money so that they can buy their sweets ration and a few cigarettes. It is nothing very luxurious for which I am asking. I ask that these privileges should be granted from the first day. The whole attitude towards prisoners should be reversed. They should start their sentence with privileges—if they abuse them they could he taken away—instead of having to go through three months of sheer misery before they can get the simple things which we would not call privileges but just the fundamental needs of people. They should be able to earn a little money and to get out of their cells after half past four at night.
I do not know, but I believe that the scale of earnings is laid down by the Prison Commissioners. On unskilled work not more than 4d. a week, and on highly skilled work Is. a week can be earned. Those are the possible earnings. On what basis this is laid down I do not know: certainly, it is not a trade union


basis. If earnings are not to be granted on any sort of trade union basis, then the prisoners should be paid for good behaviour and for work well done. There may be a highly skilled engineer who would be very good at making radio parts, as they do in Holloway, or a highly skilled tailoress who would do good work in the tailoring shop, but there may not be any place in either of those workshops. The consequence is that she has to scrub floors and, because she is doing much harder work which is unskilled, in no circumstances can she earn more than 4d. a week. If earnings are to be paid on a basis of good behaviour —it can only be called that because it is not really payment for work done—then it should be on a proper pocket money basis. It should be possible for every prisoner who works well, to whatever work she may be put, to earn at least 2s. 6d. a week. That would enable her to buy a full sweet ration, a few cigarettes or some other little thing. Because it must be remembered that if a prisoner wants a shampoo powder, or anything of that sort, she must buy it out of these ridiculously small earnings.
On the question of recreation, I want to place great stress on rehabilitation. That can only be obtained if, in addition to good working conditions, there are good recreational facilities. As a result of an answer given yesterday by the Home Secretary I learned that the average number of prisoners, able to get out of their cells after 4·30, for classes or any form of recreation, is 165 out of a total prisoner population fluctuating between about 460 and a little over 500. That means that on no night can more than about a quarter of the prisoners get out of their cells after the 4·30 "lock up." There they have to remain with nothing to do. They are not given anything entertaining except the books I have mentioned. They cannot do embroidery or needlework. They cannot occupy themselves in any sort of way. As I say, only 165, a little over a quarter, are able to get out of their cells after the 4·30 "lock up."
If recreational facilities are to be worth while, there must be a grant which will provide the necessary materials. In this connection I asked about the gardens. There are fairly extensive grounds and certain parts are cultivated. I find that they are maintained by gifts. I claim that the Government should not rely upon charit-

able gifts for the cultivation of the gardens of our institutions.

Mr. Osbert Peake: May I interrupt? The hon. Lady is making a very interesting speech. I should like to know what is the source of her information. I did not hear her opening remarks. She has said continually, throughout her speech, that she asked this and asked that. Has she recently visited the prison, or is she a prison visitor? Has she first-hand experience of the conditions which she has described?

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I am very glad to have had that interruption. When I said that I had asked, I should explain that I had three Questions yesterday—

Mr. Peake: In Parliament?

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: Yes. They were not answered orally but in writing. The figures I quoted were from these answers. Recently I visited Holloway, where I spent a good many hours, and I got the information at first hand.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I think it will be found that everything I have said is accurate. In the answer which I received yesterday from the Secretary of State, it was stated that £15 had been spent on garden tools. Since I asked about flowers and plants for the garden, and no answer was made, I take it that no money was spent on them. A sum of £13 was spent on materials for needlework and other classes, and £5 5s. od. on entertainment. Apart from that, the small sum of £4was spent on a radio licence fee and renewal of parts. The radios are not provided by the Government. Nothing else for the entertainment, recreation, or recreational occupation of the prisoners is provided.

Mr. Austin: Is that the annual expenditure?

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: That is the expenditure for 1946. I did not get any information whether it varies from year to year. Including the radio licence fee, the expenditure for gardens, recreational facilities, classes and so on, was £37 for a fluctuating population of between 460 and over 500.

Dr. Stephen Taylor (Barnet): When the hon. Lady says that was the expenditure, does she mean the Government grant?

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: Yes.

Dr. Taylor: I think the expenditure was considerably higher.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I said earlier that a good deal is done by charity from voluntary sources, but this Government should not stand for that. I apologise if I did not make it clear. I did not mean for one moment that not more than that was spent. I meant that £ 37 was spent by way of Government grant, and that is completely inadequate. It is essential that the Government should put into operation the provision of rehabilitation for prisoners. This should not be considered to be merely a theoretical matter.
I want to say one other word about the shortage of staff. From the answer to a Question which I asked yesterday, I understand that the prison officers are 21 short of a full complement, that 55 were appointed last year and 44 left. I do not think that that is by any means satisfactory, but it is much less satisfactory in the hospital, which I believe is efficient in many ways, but which is miserably bare. Ex-patients who came out of prison told me that they were terribly unhappy because of the rigid routine which was laid down in the hospital. In regard to the hospital staff, they are 10 short. Twenty new members were appointed last year, and 19 left. I do not know that they were 19 of the 20 appointed, but 19 left, so that they are only one nearer to their full complement, and I think that suggests that there is something wrong with the prison organisation, even in these days of shortage of nurses. When one remembers that a very considerable number of babies are born in prison—I think it is unfortunate, but they are—and that there is a special ward into which expectant mothers go at eight months, and that that ward is cold, bare and unfriendly, I think it will be agreed that such conditions are not very helpful to the attitude of mind of the expectant mother.
Finally, I want to emphasise again that we have not reached in Holloway Prison anything near the proper standard of the treatment of offenders, which should be remedial, and that we should go all out for rehabilitation. These things have got to be altered. We must have a -much more humane basis of treatment for the prisoners, we must

give them a chance to feel that there is some sort of comfort, encouragement and hope, and, most immediately of all, we have to give them something to eat and drink much later in the evening so that they may go to sleep in a little comfort.

1.22 p.m.

Mrs. Florence Paton: I am very glad to be able to make a contribution to this discussion today on the treatment of women prisoners in our prisons. Before the war, I myself visited Holloway Prison, and I think that anyone who wishes to express a point of view about this question should have had that experience. I think that, on going into Holloway Prison, the first thing that strikes one is the building itself. There we have a gloomy, Victorian building, a structure which was built in the days when ideas about the treatment of prisoners were very different. From the ideas of today, a building which impresses one with a sense of awe, and, more than that, with a sense of terrible fear. I think that anyone not going into that building as a prisoner would almost feel like one, because one feels so angry about the structure of the whole place and the terrible feeling of gloom and of being shut in once one is inside.
The cells have stone floors and windows with iron railings. Looking down into the prison from the upper floors is like looking down into an abyss into which one feels one might fall at any time. These are the old cells of the building built many years ago, and they are dull places into which the daylight can hardly penetrate. There is a small aperture near the ceiling of the cell out of which it is very difficult to see, and, if the prisoner does look out, the only view which she has is one of a blank wall. I do not know the condition of the cells at the moment, but I do not think they can have improved very much.
A hundred years ago, Elizabeth Fry had something to say about the question of solitary confinement, and what we have heard from the hon. Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) shows that the question of solitary confinement has not yet, after 100 years, been solved. The shutting of women in a cell at 4·30 p.m. until the next morning


is one of those cruelties against which Elizabeth Fry cried out 100 years ago. She said then:
I am certain that separate confinement produces an unhealthy state of mind and body and has, generally, a demoralising influence.
I know that some of the recommendations that Elizabeth Fry made have long ago been brought into operation. She it was who asked for special treatment for women offenders, who asked for women Governors of prisons and that a whole prison should be managed by women. I think that only recently have we really achieved that condition in Holloway Prison, where we now have a woman Governor and women officers right throughout the prison, but it does seem to me extraordinary that, after all these Years, we have not yet achieved a solution of this problem—this cruel, wicked problem of the solitary confinement of people in cells for long hours together. I think I know one of the reasons why this, unfortunately, has become inevitable.
A year ago, I put a Question to the Home Secretary on the subject of Holloway Prison, the number of prisoners there and the number of people to look after them, and, in a letter to me, the Home Secretary said:
In the year 1938, the staff was working on a two-shift system so as to cover an active day for the prisoners extending well into the evening. During the war this had to be abandoned, and only one shift is working.
Clearly, the one-shift basis is the reason for the confinement of women in their cells so early in the evening. The reason for that is the shortage of staff, and it is on this question that I want to concentrate.
I asked the Home Secretary a year ago why it was not possible to secure university trained people, and particularly women who had had a course of social science and who had the incentive and the urge for this kind of work, and why such women were not given more encouragement to go into the prison service and help in this glorious work, which it really is if looked at from the proper point of view. The Home Secretary wrote to me:
It is unlikely that young women with university qualifications will be attracted either by the nature of the work or the conditions of service in the basic grade in existing women's prisons and Borstal institutions.
I tried to find out what were the reasons why university trained people were not

prepared to go into this kind of service, and I think I have discovered some of the reasons, which I think should be noted. There has been, for some years, at the London School of Economics, a course in criminology which had a considerable number of women students who were keenly interested in the study and treatment of delinquency, adult and juvenile. Most of these people have come from the social science department and have been going occasionally to Holloway Prison for short periods for practical work.
One of the teachers of the London School of Economics tried to find out why these students, having had practical courses at Holloway and Aylesbury Prisons, rather tended to leave the service than to go into it as a career. He discovered that there was a too rigid system governing the whole of service in the prisons. There were certain things which he thought could be done to encourage these people with a sense of social purpose who would like to enter the prison service. In order to encourage people of the right kind to enter the service—because we believe that one of the chief needs is the right kind of staff from the Governor right down through the prison —he gave me some of the conditions which he thought should be improved.
First of all, there was the irregularity of hours of duty which made it impossible at the present time for members of the staff to maintain a social life outside, to see their friends or to participate in the social and cultural life of the community in the way they would like. I look upon that as a most important thing. I know that in no profession can one really do one's work properly unless one has contact with the outside world as well as with the inside of the profession in which one is. That applies particularly to the teaching profession. Teachers, who become too closely confined within the four walls of a school, taking no interest in the outside life, are not effective, successful teachers. They become stale, and I think the same applies to students who having gone into the prison service have few facilities for going outside to take part in the social and cultural life of the community.
Any new, fresh face or fresh idea is like a ray of sunshine coming inside the prison walls, and consequently those people, who are really willing to go into the prison service, feel that the rules are too rigid and it is not possible to get out-


side enough to enjoy the life of the community which would make them fresh and renew them for service inside. I am also informed by this teacher at the London School of Economics that the principle of seniority makes it impossible for the younger ones to meet their colleagues on an equal footing. Generally speaking, this seems to be applied with excessive rigidity. I wonder if something could not be done there.
In order to see that students, once having entered this service, will not be inclined to leave it without having done any effective work, we should consider the question of the salaries of the officers of a better educational standard. They are not high enough to compensate to some extent for the unattractiveness—and we all realise how unattractive this kind of work is unless one has the urge to do it—but they could be made a little more attractive if the reward offered to those people, who have taken a proper training and have the right educational standard for the work, was higher. I understand there are many social workers who would be willing to volunteer as prison officers for a limited number of years, say five or ten years, if there could be a possibility of an interchange between prison service and other kindred branches. It is the sense of going into prison and doing only that particular type of work which frightens people. They think of the long vista of years in this very unattractive service. Surely, in any reform of our penal system there will be the possibility of providing those who take up this sort of service with an interchange between the various branches of service after a certain number of years
There are one or two other points on the question of staff which I wish to put. I want to refer to this question of solitary confinement again. There is a lack of provision of courses to make the prisoners' lives much more interesting inside the prison and much more effective when they come outside the prison. I understand that one of the big needs is suitable personal relationship between the better trained officers and the inmates. These should be encouraged to get together more, for it is only by so doing that full use can be made of the special qualifications of the officers trained in social work. One of the essential con-

ditions for that is to give the officers unrestricted access to the records of the inmates. I think these are further points which could be considered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
I know that later on we are going to have a complete new Criminal Justice Bill, and that the Home Secretary is exceedingly busy on this. We hope when he brings in this Bill that there will be very fine reforms in connection with all branches of the service, but I do think that the women's branch ought to be given special consideration because there are not so many women criminals as men. Women are less criminally minded than men, according to the statistics, and are easier to reform if reform is done in the right way. I feel that we ought to increase the right methods of dealing with wrongdoers who desire to rehabilitate themselves and make themselves useful servants of the community. We ought to do that rather than have the desire to punish. That, I think, is the big point. If our first thought is to punish for wrongdoing we are going wrong psychologically from the beginning. Our first thought should be to rehabilitate—to make a person who broke the law into one who is willing to obey the law, and who is desirous of settling into the community and living a peaceful useful life in the future.
We want to reform, to transform if we can, and make an unfortunately wrong character into a right one. We would like to see very soon quick and revolutionary reforms—more revolutionary than we have had before. We wish to see in the course of time different types of buildings and new experiments, like some of the experiments in America and Russia, where women are trained in colonies where they can have the chance of self-expression and self-fulfillment, as well as more opportunities of showing that they are not the type of character which people often think they are because they have been in prison for wrong-doing. I hope, therefore, that we shall have some very startling and very fine changes made in the criminal law, but I am hoping that we will see improvements made in the immediate conditions as a result of the Adjournment Debate.
I support the hon. Member for North Hendon in all that she has said about the treatment of girls and women at Holloway


Prison. It is impossible almost for us to imagine if we have not experienced it just what solitary confinement is. It is the greatest torture that one human being can impose on another. I estimate that torture to be greater than going without food. We know that many of these prisoners have not any internal resources of their own and are not philosophically minded in the sense that they can concentrate on higher and better things to pass away the time. They are trapped in those prisons, and, if we have any sign of social conscience, we ought to be willing to do something immediately to prevent that torture being endured any moment longer than we can possibly help.
On the question, too, of the payment, it is nonsensical to pay a woman 4d. a week. It is an insult, a mockery. What can a woman buy with 4d? What on earth can she buy with 4d. in these days? We are told that even the children who are boarded out should have, at least, 8d. a week pocket money, and, if possible, a shilling a week. Yet here we are expecting women to work in prison and paying them 4d. for it. The idea is ridiculous. I would rather have nothing at all, and not feel insulted in that way. We hope something will be done about that. We hope that something will be done, also, about the three months period mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Hendon. That is a cruel punishment for anyone who goes into prison for the first time. There are many things I could talk about, but I do not want to take up more time—such things as facilities for more soap, facilities for more towels, facilities for all those things which mean so much to women in keeping themselves trim and keeping their sense of respectability. I hope that, as a result of this Debate, we shall see some immediate improvements along the lines I have mentioned.

1.42 p.m.

Mr. William Wells: I have very little indeed to add to the admirable speeches which my hon. Friends have made. I am sure we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Gould) for raising this matter. I myself had occasion, for less philanthropic motives, I fear, than those of my hon. Friends, to visit Holloway Prison little time before Christmas. I arrived there about 5 o'clock on a frosty, foggy evening early in December, to see an un-

fortunate client of mine who was on remand there. The sheer gloom of those surroundings at that time no words of mine could adequately paint. I shall not attempt the task. I will merely say two things. First, the unfortunate woman whom I visited, who was, before she committed the offence for which she was there, in a highly wrought up and unstable frame of mind, was reduced to the state of imagining all kinds of persecution were being inflicted upon her by the prison officials—which, I am perfectly certain, was quite unfounded, and was merely the result of those terrible, long hours of brooding and loneliness. The other point—of which I must speak rather carefully, for obvious reasons—is the conversations I had with certain of the prison officials when I was there, who were quite as much depressed and worried about the general conditions in the prison as I was when I went there. They do explain, I think, to some extent, the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for North Hendon, and suggest the difficulty of retaining prison staff there.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend who is to reply to the Debate one or two questions. Is he able to say how the figures of the prisoners are broken down? How many of the 460 to 500 prisoners, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for North Hendon referred, are on remand? How many are first offenders, and how many second offenders? How many are old lags? I can well understand that, with our present housing difficulties and the difficulties about staff, and so forth, there may be some justification for keeping old lags under the general conditions which my hon. Friends have depicted. There may be occasions when it is absolutely necessary to put numbers of women who are on remand in a prison of this kind. Remand is 'always very difficult. We have to have people on remand near the courts where their cases are to be heard, and near doctors who are, perhaps, to examine them. But there can be no justification whatever in keeping first and second offenders in a prison of this kind. The conditions are wholly and absolutely unsuited for any kind of redemption. The conditions are prone, I should have thought, rather to degrade than to improve the mental condition of those who are there. I do urge my hon. Friend to take every step within his power to remove first or second


offenders who are in Holloway to other prisons. On what principles are first or second offenders allocated to this prison? Is it a mere matter of chance that a girl who has stolen from a shop goes, for instance, to Holloway or to Aylesbury, where, I understand, the conditions are very much better? I can close only by imploring my hon. Friend to do everything in his power to remove these young women to other prisons; and by echoing everything my hon. Friend the Member for North Hendon has said.

1.47 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Before my hon. Friend replies, there is just one simple suggestion I should like to put to him. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells), I think we are all grateful for the very full and human speeches that we have heard from my hon. Friends the Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Gould) and the Member for Rushcliffe (Mrs. Paton). It is especially desirable at this particular time that we should concentrate attention upon the prison system of this country, and I think it is most desirable that the attention which is focused upon it should be focused upon it along the right lines. At present, unfortunately, there is a tendency for the public's attention to be attracted to our prisons only through the medium of the Press. I make no complaint of the Press. I think journalists and prison officers are, on the whole, very reasonable and responsible people; but, unfortunately, I do not think that the Home Office. or the Prison Commissioners do their best to help either the prison officers or the journalists who are interested in the conditions. At present, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said, it is very difficult to recruit men and women into the prison service. It's made no easier to recruit them when there are what I think are exaggerated articles appearing in the newspapers.
My suggestion is that the Home Office would be well advised to appoint a public relations officer who would be responsible for contact between the prisons, the prison officers, and the public. Unfortunately, at the moment, journalists have to rely, to a very large extent, on hearsay about the conditions, and they do write exaggerated articles, which are very bad for the morale of the prison staffs. I hope very much that, if my hon. Friend

cannot reply to this suggestion now, he will bear it in mind as a possible means to help the prison staffs very considerably.

1.49 p.m.

Mr. Benson: I have only one small point to make. It is mainly with regard to the outlook of the Prison Commissioners themselves. I have been in contact with them for a long time now, and I know they are a body of men struggling as best they can with very intractable problems—first, the problem of buildings, and, more recently, with the difficulties of the war. But I am more and more convinced that one of the weaknesses of the Prison Commissioners is a complete misreading of public opinion. I feel they are scared about it and that they might do a lot more if they had not at the back of their minds the bogy of some Press stunt. The reception given to the Criminal Justice Bill, in 1939, showed the enormous interest in the Press and elsewhere in this matter, and the complete absence of criticism of anything but the rather controversial subject relating to the abolition of corporal punishment. It showed that public opinion in this country was prepared for very large advances indeed in our methods of dealing with delinquents.
The Prison Commissioners are faced with an extraordinarily difficult problem, and within the limitations under which they have to work, they are certainly a humane body of men who are trying to do what they can. But I wish they would be a little bit braver and run a few more risks in connection with this bogy, 'because that would do more for the immediate problem than anything else. Practically all their problems arise from overcrowding. These prisons, built 60 and 80 years ago, were not designed for education or improvement, but for punishment in solitary confinement. The prisons are so appallingly congested that they are quite inadequate for modern lines of development for more than 25 per cent. of their present population. There is no immediate solution to nine-tenths of our present difficulties, other than getting people out of the prison. Vast numbers of people are sent to prison who never ought to be sent there. Those people who require sharp punishment, discipline and some form of control can, in a very large number of cases, receive it extra-murally. The establishment of small prison camps is certainly feasible in the case of men,


which would enable more accommodation to be used for women. The development of the small prison camp has been proved during the war and at Wakefield for many years before. That is an immediate solution to meet these problems which arise through trying to run a modern system in buildings designed for entirely different purposes.

1.55p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Oliver): I regret, by reason of the very short notice we have had of this Debate, that it will not be possible to deal as fully as I should have liked with this matter, having regard to the great importance of the issues it raises. The question of prisoners, male and female, is of extreme importance, and it should receive the greatest possible attention. It has only been possible for me to look into the question of Holloway very late in the day, although I notice that the Debate has taken an extended course and has covered other prisons and other matters appertaining to Holloway. I agrees with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) that the Prison Commissioners are dealing with a most difficult subject. They have inherited obsolete buildings, and they have to do the best they can with the material at their disposal. I have no doubt that if the Prison Commissioners started de novo, there would be a great reform in this country not only in the prisons, but in the prison system. That, unfortunately, cannot be done, and much criticism accrues as a result. No one in particular can be responsible for these conditions until the opportunity presents itself to overhaul the whole question of the buildings and the system. The hon. Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) said that we were looking forward to the Criminal justice Bill, and under that Bill many of these factors can be dealt with comprehensively. The question of the appointment of prison officers lies at the root of practically all the criticisms which have been made. Whether it be four o'clock "lock ups," or whether it be the other matters which have been raised, all these concern the question of staff, and it is not within the competence of the Home Office or the Prison Commissioners until the requisite number of people are appointed to administer the system we would wish to

see. Until we can get back to the two-shift system, I regret to say that the Home Secretary and the Prison Commissioners cannot ameliorate some of the complaints which have been made. There may be criticisms in regard to the recruitment of prison officers, but that is a matter which is much too extensive to go into at this particular time, because, primarily, we are concerned with the conditions appertaining to Holloway.
The hon. Member for North Hendon raised three questions, which I have noted. Firstly, that for the first three months prisoners have no privileges, that they are unable to earn and consequently secure their sweet rations. Next, that the earnings are inadequate; and, lastly, the question of the 4·30 last meal and lock up, which, she says, cannot be put down to war conditions or postwar shortage of staff. With regard to her first point, the prison rules provide that there shall be three stages for convicted prisoners. The first stage is for 12 weeks, the second for 16 weeks, and the third stage is thereafter. For those prisoners who have not been previously convicted of any serious crime, they enter the second stage after the fourth week, and are thus in the position of a second-stager, which means the privilege attached to the second and third stages of earning some small amount. It must not be forgotten that the earnings system is not solely for the purpose of enabling the second and first stagers to earn money; it is for the purpose of giving them useful work, giving them an incentive to do something in industry.

Mr. Paget: Is not the question here whether the women should have their sweet ration?

Mr. Oliver: It is not possible for prisoners to have their sweet ration, because no sweet allowance per head of population is made to prisons. Further, many prisoners have not got their ration cards, and in other cases, where they have, their rations are used. For the short-term prisoners, that is the particular difficulty. That applies also to the second and third stagers. They cannot have their ration, although they can acquire what would constitute their ration in private life.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: Why is that?

Mr. Oliver: As I have said, many have not got their ration books. I also understand that the prison authorities are not given a ration of sweets for individual prisoners.

Mrs. Paton: Why not ask that they should be given sweet rations? It is not impossible, I lake it, to get sweets into the prisons.

Mr. Oliver: All that has been said today will be carefully considered. I have had no chance to go into this matter thoroughly, because there has not been the time. I am told that it is not possible to provide a sweet ration where facilities do not exist, or the earning capacity of the second and third stager is inadequate to acquire what the person would be entitled to in civilian life.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Is not the reason that it would cause a little trouble to someone to get these sweets? Is not that the reason why prisoners have never had them?

Mr. Oliver: I have Pointed out that many of the difficulties are due to shortage of staff. All that has been said today will be carefully considered.

Mr. Paget: Could my hon. Friend go a little further, and tell us that he will do his best to get a sweet ration for these women?

Mr. Oliver: My hon. Friend may take it that we shall do our best, not only to deal with that question, but to deal with the other criticisms that have been made. We recognise that there is a lot to be done. We are not satisfied with the present state of affairs in many directions. With regard to the complaints, probably justifiable, about the solitary confinement, from 4.30 p.m., for short-term prisoners, that is, those who have been confined to prison for three months or less, that position can be reviewed. I doubt whether it is possible for all the people in prison to associate together in the evening, because that would require an enormous staff. I do not suggest that a person should he deprived of all rights and privileges by reason of inadequate staff, but we are now very circumscribed by the fact that we cannot get sufficient staff to carry out an immediate reform in that direction. My hon. Friend the Member

for North Hendon said that the three months prisoner was not permitted to enjoy evening association. When concerts and cinema shows are held all prisoners are entitled to attend them, even first-stage prisoners.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: Is my hon. Friend saying that during the initial three months these prisoners are allowed out, on occasions, for recreation after 4·30? If so, how often does that happen?

Mr. Oliver: When concerts and cinema shows are held they are permitted to attend them, although I cannot say how frequently those shows take place. However, the position is not quite so bad as she has stated. I do not think that anyone would attempt to justify the earnings made by prisoners, and I am glad to assure the House that this matter is now receiving the attention of the Prison Commissioners
With regard to conditions at Holloway, the hon. Lady said that the prisoners there had always been locked up at 4.30 p.m. That is not quite the case. Up to November, 1939, they were not locked up until 5.50 p.m., and the final meal was served about 5.40 p.m. It was only during the war years that the time of 4.30 was introduced. That is not due to the fact that people want to treat the prisoners callously; it is because of staff shortage. I am glad to tell the House that there has been, and is at the present time, an effort being made to see that the prisoners get tea at teatime and a cup of cocoa later, at 6.30 p.m. It that system can continue, it will bring the conditions nearer to prewar standard, although I do not for one moment suggest that prewar conditions were the last word in prison administration. The 4.30 p.m. time had to be introduced because of the war, and we are now making an experiment which I hope we shall be able 10 continue. By reason of staff difficulties and the pressure under which the staff are working in the prisons, it is difficult for them to serve this later meal, because the service alone takes them up to close on 8 p.m. They have been giving up one weekend after another, and, therefore, it makes it most difficult for the prison officers to work this overtime.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: This is not happening in Holloway, is it?

Mr. Oliver: Yes; my observations are directed wholly to Holloway. Another matter that was raised had reference to prison clothing. Some time ago the Prison Commissioners set up a committee to study the whole question of prison clothing, and that Committee has made recommendations which have been accepted, and which involve the redesigning of the clothes of prisoners, both male and female. It is now merely a question of obtaining the necessary material, which is in short supply, and having the new designs made. A start has already been made with this, although it will take a long time before the changeover from the present prison clothing to the new pattern can be completed over all prison establishments. It will, therefore, be seen that this matter has not escaped the attention of the Commissioners.
I think I have covered substantially all the points that have been raised, although I apologise for not having been able to deal with the matters as thoroughly as I would have liked, because at the moment I have not all the information available, for reasons which I have given. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Hendon and the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mrs. Paton) on having raised the matter, because it is important that those of us who have our liberty should be interested in those who are temporarily deprived of it. If, as the hon. Member for Chesterfield said, the Prison Commissioners shun publicity, it is our duty, as Members of Parliament, to sec that publicity is given to matters affecting the unfortunate persons who find themselves incarcerated.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION (SAFETY MEASURES)

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: am sure I shall have the sympathetic attention of the whole House when I direct attention to the need for providing adequate safety measures in civil aviation. I do this with a sense of urgency because of the recent disasters to civil aircraft, but this urgency is enforced, because it seems to me that the problem is being disguised at the moment by necessary concentration on other factors. In saying that, I must, at the same time, pay a tribute to the splendid work that

has been done by the Ministry of Civil Aviation in the provision of ground control and navigational aids; in the training and equipment of pilots and crews, and in the supply of engines of high efficiency and reliability. In all these spheres the Ministry has made a notable contribution to safe air travel.
But as I see the position, these aids do not face up to the real problem, which is to provide adequate security for the passengers in the event of accident. That is not so today. When we realise that the modern aeroplane is a combination of man and mechanism, both of which are liable to error, and that the modern power unit is a complex mass of nearly 16,000 bits and pieces designed to maintain 2,000 revolutions per minute, we begin to appreciate something of the risk we take every time we enter a plane. To each one of those bits of mechanism, liable to error, we commit our safety in every journey. We must accept the fact that accidents will happen, and we must seek and secure the aerodynamic formula which will provide the passenger, in the event of accident, with built-in crash survivability in the airframe of the machine, with low speed landing and lower take-off as a consequence, lower wing loading and lift sustaining devices. The question is whether that can be done.
Just before entering the Chamber this afternoon, I received two articles from a journal of great repute in the world of aviation, the "Journal of Commerce and Shipping Telegraph." As copies were handed to me only in the Lobby, because of the interest that has been excited in technical circles by this Debate, I am not able to quote from them at the moment, but I gather that the trend of both those articles sustains the proposition which I am trying to present to the House. In addition, the road which I want to follow is the one on which we have already started. The two Royal Vikings, which are accompanying, at this moment, their Majesties, in their South Africa tour carry in their structure the principle of crash survivability, which I am advocating for commercial craft. I do not say that they embody that principle completely, but the next step is up to our designers and constructors. What is the real difficulty that faces us? It is not lack of ability to find the aerodynamic formula. It is that civil aviation is nurtured in military aviation.
Military aviation must take risks; civil aviation should not. Military aviation is always reaching for greater and greater speed; civil aviation should reach for greater and greater safety for passengers and crews. The military plane must seek to carry its load from one point to another as quickly as possible—quicker than any competitor can do—and, therefore, because of that, we are today passing to the jet-propelled machine, now coming off the drawing board, soon to go into production, and then into use, to hurtle its living cargo with gun muzzle speed through the substratosphere, at 50,000 feet in pressurised and sealed "coffins" I use that word advisedly.
Let one little flaw develop in that death trap carrying crew and passengers— passengers ignorant of their danger—and death becomes the instant companion of every individual in that fragile egg. To avoid that fate, the pilot must dive forthwith from the substratosphere to the atmosphere. In so doing, he compels the machine to consume three or four times more fuel in the atmosphere than was necessary in the substratosphere, and by avoiding death at the higher altitude, he is forced to court it at the lower altitude. That is not a fanciful picture. My hon. Friend may not see it with my eyes, but I know that he appreciates, in the most sympathetic way, the problem which I am trying to present. Therefore, I ask him with all respect to bring to the notice of his noble Friend the suggestions which I have made. Further, I would ask him to approach P.I.C.A.O. to try and reach an international understanding, for, in the long run, we are facing not a national problem, but an international one, and, therefore, it is necessary to reach an international understanding on this question of air safety and the methods of obtaining it.
The two most deadly contenders today in this mad struggle for increasing speed are Britain and the United States of America. Surely, we, who have drawn so closely together in friendship and understanding in other spheres, are not to be drawn against one another in this destructive race for speed supremacy. If my hon. Friend and his noble Friend should conclude that P.I.C.A.O. is not strong enough to forward the proposals they make I hope on the lines which I have indicated, then I would say

to my hon. Friend: Let this nation set the lead. It has lead the world in many great causes. Wrapped up, as my hon. Friend well knows, in all that I have said is the need to develop aviation for peaceful and not warlike ends, as is being done at the moment.
This morning, to reinforce what I am saying, comes the news of further tragedy, and again that terrible statement in the Press, "There are no survivors." The modern air machine, due to its design and structure, is a lethal weapon, and no one in this House would willingly commit his child to it. During this week, the South African Council of Civil Aviation have banned all children under 16 from traveling in any of their aircraft. Once, in this House sat Samuel Plimsoll, and I seek in no way to suggest to hon. Members any parallel between myself and that great man. He condemned the coffin ships that sailed the seas in his day. Today I condemn the coffin ships that sail the air in my time. Plimsoll demanded safety for those who go down to the sea in ships. He got it. I ask it for those who go into the air.

Mr. Austin: My hon. Friend has made repeated reference to the safety factor, and what he called "crash survivability." That is a very mysterious phrase. Can he tell us what it means?

Mr. Rankin: I am glad that point has been put. I did not want to introduce too many technical aspects into this subject today, because I confess, quite readily, that I am not an expert. But I am one who is used to flying as a method of transit between this House and my home, and I hope to go on using it, but one feels that one can only do so if the safety principle is built into the structure of the machines. In view of the fact that I have been asked the question, perhaps I might be allowed to illustrate briefly what I mean by the principle of crash survivability.
When one enters an aeroplane one sits facing the cockpit, and a little strap is put round one's waist. That strap is to enable the passenger to resist a sudden impact. The human frame has a certain resistance. It can withstand impacts up to a certain mathematical value, which is about nine or ten times its own resistance. If the figure goes beyond 26 times the factor of human resistance, the human frame is shattered, as we can see in the


pictures of disasters. In order to reinforce one s natural resistance, one is instructed to place one's feet upon the chair in front. I suggest that crash survivability can be increased if, instead of facing the cockpit, passengers started with their backs towards the engine. Everyone will realise that resistance is greater from the back than from the front.

Mr. Walkden: Is not an experiment already being carried out and applied on those lines? I speak only with such knowledge as I have from about 2,000 miles of recent flying. I am certain that I have travelled with my back to the cockpit in a B.O.A.C. plane, and that I found it very comfortable. I hope that the experiment is a success.

Mr. Rankin: I indicated in the earlier part of my speech that the principle is incorporated in an aeroplane with the Royal party.

Mr. Walkden: It is a Dakota.

Mr. Rankin: We admit that the principle is on its way, but it has not yet been generally accepted. That is the point which I am making. In any case, it is only a partial step, and must be accompanied by low-speed landing, lower wing loading, and by lift sustaining devices. I hope I have indicated briefly what I mean by crash survivability.
I am making a demand for safety. Just as safety has been obtained for ships, so it must come for the air. The travelling public are the judges. They are demanding it today. We, the representatives in this House of the travelling public, must see to it that they get what they demand.

2.35 P.m.

Mr. Walkden: I intervene only upon one aspect of this matter. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) used quite a lot of technical phrases, such "crash survivability". I am sure he must know all about what they mean. Truthfully, I do not know what they mean. I hope the Minister will provide us with an answer when he replies. I am putting the point of view of the traveller, the customer. Those of us who like to use the air want to feel that the customer in civil aviation is always right in every sense. We want to go up and to come down at the proper scheduled times, not come down in advance of the schedule because something has gone wrong with the

aircraft. I plead with the Minister to check very carefully the meteorological and forecasting organisation, in order to ascertain whether it is as advanced as we have a right to expect it to be, considering the present personnel and the equipment that we have. Having travelled a considerable distance in Dakotas, Ansons and other types of aeroplanes, I must say that travelling with the B.O.A.C. is happier, more comfortable and makes me more satisfied, so much, so that I ventured to take my wife on my last excursion, which I made to Czechoslovakia.
What is worrying me is whether we are able to give information to pilots and navigators about conditions prevailing at the landing place. We know we can start off all right but whether we can expect to reach journey's-end safely is a matter of considerable importance. I think there is something missing on the equipment side, in regard to this kind of information and to the link-up of the aircraft of the B.O.A.C. A few months ago I left Marseilles in a plane which obviously was not airworthy. After about 20 or 30 miles we were advised to wrap up in all the warm clothing we could, because something had gone wrong. About a quarter of an hour after leaving Marseilles the heating equipment failed, and we had a very uncomfortable journey. Everybody was sympathetic about it, but by the time we were able to get out again we were feeling like frozen mutton. That was the result of some neglect at the beginning of our journey.
A lot of our trouble arises out of a shortage of personnel at airports and stations overseas. If we are to maintain our reputation as one of the foremost nations in civil aviation we must not let that continue. Technicians, engineers and everybody necessary must be trained to attend to the efficiency of the plane and there must be some kind of check made at every stage. A few days ago, a plane departed for Southern Rhodesia, but unfortunately never got there, and a number of people were killed. I noticed that on that occasion a statement was made on behalf of the Minister repudiating responsibility and saying that it had nothing to do with us. I would like the Minister to look at that statement again, because when a passenger applies for a passage on a particular plane and that plane is full up, it is quite common for the passenger to be transferred to another company, maybe


K.L.M., maybe the Czechoslovakian Airline, or any other company. I submit that there is a collective responsibility here. If I apply to B.O.A.C. for a passage and am eventually transferred to K.L.M. or Czech Airlines, it is our responsibility to see that those airlines are up to our standards of airworthiness, and fulfill all the conditions which we expect to obtain from B.O.A.C. planes. I do not claim to know a great deal of the technical aspects of the matter; I only know, as a passenger, what happens. There are many people like myself who will travel by plane because they feel it saves time, and in doing so they want comfort, security and certainty that they will not come down in a hurry instead of coming down quietly and slowly. I therefore beg the Minister to check up on the points I have raised, because I believe they are of considerable importance to passengers who may travel during the forthcoming months.

2.42 p.m

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I only wish to intervene briefly in this Debate because it is a subject in which I have been keenly interested for many years. I held a pilot's A licence before the war and flew a few hundred hours, and I have also had experience, not of keeping aircraft in the air, but of keeping mechanical vehicles on the road, and so I hope that my remarks may be of value. I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite who used the term "crash survivability." I had not heard it applied to the human frame before, but I think it has an application in regard to the aircraft itself.

Mr. Rankin: Did the hon. and gallant Member say the aircrew? He does not exclude the crew?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: No, I said the aircraft —I meant the crash survivability of the actual aircraft itself. Anybody who has been unfortunate enough to witness an aircraft crash cannot have failed to be horrified and impressed by the speed with which it bursts into flames. On many occasions a large number of the crew and passengers could have survived had that not occurred, and this question of burning is a very serious one indeed. I would like to know what is being done on this question of fire, and what is the real reason for the immediate conflagration

which follows a crash. I am informed that it has very little to do with petrol. but is due to the heat of the engines and the oil and paint, which are giving off easily-combustible fumes. I think it has more to do with that than the carrying of petrol in tanks, and I would like to know what is the latest information on the subject.
From my experience of keeping tanks on the road, I am convinced that the whole crux of the problem of keeping aircraft in the air is the day-to-day ground maintenance. Many of these serious accidents have been due to neglect, through casualness, carelessness or possibly lack of staff and overwork, and however much people dislike the word I feel that there must be a certain amount of discipline in the day-to-day ground maintenance, because people's lives depend on it. I hope the Minister is making very searching inquiries into the programme of maintenance, and into the number of flying hours which engines and aircraft are called upon to perform before being taken in for a major overhaul. I believe that a large number of past crashes could have been avoided had there been more ground staff, and more amenities and facilities available for carrying out maintenance. I myself, in my flying before the war and since, have very often been horrified at the lack of facilities on the aerodromes on which I have landed.
I would also like to refer to another aspect of maintenance: the question of height maintenance on one or two engines, as the case may be, when one engine cuts out. I believe that no aircraft should be allowed to take off with a load greater than that with which it can maintain height, or even gain height, with one of its power units cut out. It is fairly simple to maintain height once it has been gained, but the danger period, as we all know—and we have all held our fingers crossed on these occasions—is during the take-off, when one knows quite well that if a single sparking plug misfires in the next 500 feet it is probably the end. It is vitally important that aircraft should be able to continue climbing when one of their power units has lit out. I hope we shall get an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary on that subject.

2.48 p.m.

Mr. Austin: I am sure the House is grateful to the hon. Member who


initiated this Debate, for its subject is a matter of great concern particularly in view of the number of accidents which have unfortunately occurred not only in this country, but, perhaps it is safe to,-ay, almost all over the world. The fascinating phrase "crash survivability" used by the hon. Member puzzled me. As far as I know, with my limited experience of flying in civilian life and in Me Services, there is really no such thing. There might be ameliorative features, but from the point of view of insurance against crashes the best safeguard lies in having a competent pilot and crew and serviceable engines. Anything else is only incidental to the major precautions that can be taken. The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), I am glad to note, touched on the factor that has perhaps caused more loss of life than anything else, namely, the vulnerability of aircraft to fire. While many people have been killed in aircraft crashes I think it is true to say that more have been killed by the conflagration that ensues when the aircraft hits the ground than by the actual crashes themselves. Perhaps it would be well if the Parliamentary Secretary would direct his attention, and that of his Department, to further and detailed research into this most difficult question.
There is in the minds of many who use air travel today an apprehension that in some degree we are not servicing our aircraft with all the devices possible in the same way as we did during the war for Service personnel. It was a known fact that men who risked their lives in aircraft during operations or during communications in the Forces had a great deal of peace of mind even though they were embarking on hazardous exploits and journeys, because they knew this country was pouring out its resources for safety devices in order to bring them back. However, rightly or wrongly, the impression is growing that we have sacrificed the use of some of those devices in the interests of economy. If that is so, I am puzzled because I submit that the safety of civilian personnel in peacetime is just as important as the safety and the survival of personnel in wartime.
To substantiate that, in winter time it became evident that the use of F.I.D.O. was absolutely essential for landing. There was a campaign last year to ask the

Ministry to re-apply F.I.D.O., but it was without success. I feel that if lives have been lost owing to bad landings in conditions of fog, the blame must be laid directly at the door of the Ministry for not using F.I.D.O. again, despite the expense. Whatever the expense may have been, it would have been worth while had it saved the lives that were lost. Are, we making use of all the radar devices which were so well known to those who served in the Forces and flew? There was a variety of devices. They may have been expensive, but they are worth it if they save lives.
With regard to meteorology, I have heard more apprehension on this score than any other—that is, the failure of the meteorological services. Pilots themselves have complained from time to time—

Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Member appreciate that in spite of all the navigational aids that the Ministry can possibly devise, if we still land at roo120 miles an hour, as we are doing, no ground control and no navigational aid will prevent disaster? That is where the problem lies—not with the devices.

Mr. Austin: I thank the hon. Member for his interjection. On the question of ground landing, I submit that it is purely a question for the pilot himself. In my experience, I have always had complete faith in the ability of the pilot. It is a matter for his judgment. He knows the performance of his plane, its range, cruising speed and landing speed, and accordingly I submit that it is purely a matter for the pilot. Otherwise, lack of confidence in the pilot who is responsible for the aircraft would be created. To revert to meteorological devices, there has been an uneasy disquiet in the minds of many that our meteorological devices have not been as efficient as during the war. That has been expressed not only by members of the public, but on occasions by the pilots themselves. Are these services fully manned?
My last point reverts to the question of the pilot as captain of the aircraft. During the week, the Parliamentary Secretary on a question relating to aircraft safety has asked, I believe, by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) whether the pilot was the captain of the aircraft, and he re-assured the right hon. Member that


that was so. I hope that despite any pressure that may be put on the Parliamentary Secretary, he will in no circumstances budge in the direction of allowing flying control to direct a pilot whether or not to fly. Our pilots are given excellent training—second to none in the world—and on those grounds I want to see the picot supreme as captain of his aircraft, subject, of course, to the most exceptional circumstances. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will stand firm in this matter.

2.55 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I wish to say a few words because my constituency has had a very long association with civil aviation, probably the longest of any constituency represented in this House, and because I feel that the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) regarded this matter from rather too narrow an angle. I feel that so far as "crash-survivability," as he called it, is concerned, the ordinary passenger is more interested in his crash-survivability than in the plane's crash-survivability. Therefore, it is not merely—

Mr. Rankin: It is the crash-survivability as applied to the passenger.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Then we are at one on that. If that is so, he did not deal with all the possibilities that arise, because it seems to me, after some long flights both during the war and after, that the pilot is often put under great difficulties and it is not the fault of the aircraft should an accident happen. We have been talking about ordinary land planes. Take the question of the flying boats which go from here to the Far East. At times, one has to land on the Nile at night. Perhaps there is half a gale blowing from one side of the river and one is dodging in among the shipping, and feluccas and other native craft are playing "last across" as one comes down. As all the pilots say, it is a hazardous undertaking.
At Calcutta one has to take off from the Hooghly and hope to rise above a bridge. On one occasion when we took off we did not succeed in rising and we had to fall down under it we managed to get down in time, and had another run at it. That is because of the heat in the hot-weather season at Calcutta. There is not

enough lift in the air and the plane cannot get up over the bridge. One feels, as a passenger, that these hazards are such that one has to have strong nerves, but after all civil aviation must cater for the normal nerves and even for the weak nerves as well, if it is to be a success. One need not go further than my constituency for further illustration. Any pilot will tell hon. Members that he is always very relieved when he gets out of Croydon airport and clears the houses. Sometimes coming in or out he does not clear the houses and he takes a chimney pot off, and that invariably leads to an irate letter to me—though I do not know why—from the householder. I pass such letters on to my hon. Friend. We have, therefore, to recognise that there are many ways in which this problem should be dealt with beyond the strengthening of the frame of the aircraft. We must give the pilots a reasonable chance to land, whether it is on the sea, on a river or on land, and not expect them to do miracles every time they come down.
I have a further point and it is one with reference to the recent fire at the Croydon airport. I do not wish to embarrass the Minister in any way, and if he feels it is a matter which is under inquiry, I understand and do not expect him to answer. As he will admit, I warned him on 30th October last that there was great danger in winter if the fire engines were left out of doors without cover. As we know, a certain part of the fire engines froze up during the exceptionally cold spell. The engine on duty could not be brought into play, and the fire brigade had to come from the town before the flames could be extinguished. I understand that this is a matter which has arisen because the Ministry could not get enough materials and labour to build a house for the engine. The Minister must press his claim in this matter. We cannot afford to have the safety of passengers, and their very lives, at stake, merely because there is difficulty in getting labour and materials to build a house for the fire engines.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Will the hon. Member agree that it is the whole practice on all aerodromes that the crash squad and fire engines stand by the whole time?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I understand that on this day some of the men were attending to the other plane. The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier


Prior-Palmer) will remember that one plane ran into another. The men were working on the other plane, but apart from those men the crew were standing by. Owing to the cold weather, the valves in one part of the engine froze up. That would not happen if the engine were properly housed in a warm building. I quite agree that the crew should stand by.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: With the engine started?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, with the engine started. I do not want to go into the technical details, but I am informed that it was not due to any neglect of that precaution that the engine was not brought into operation; it was a valve that froze up. May I conclude by saying that this question of safety is vitally important. Safety before speed is the ordinary passenger's desire.

3.3 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: It is essential to get this matter into its right proportion. Those who talk of the incidence of air, accidents would do well to turn over the pages of the air "A.B.C." and they would see that there are thousands of flights taking place day and night. Only in the setting of that proportion can one appreciate how relatively few accidents there are. It is also important to realise that in flying one is defying the laws of gravity, and, as a consequence, accidents are bound to happen—

Mr. Rankin: My submission was that it is not a question of relativity in regard to accidents, but what happens when an accident takes place. That was the point of supreme importance to passengers in that particular plane.

Mr. Shepherd: I was just pointing out that in air travel we are defying the law of gravity by taking a machine which weighs 20 or 30 tons, into the air up to 500 or 5,000 feet. If the power which keeps it in a normal position in the air fails, one comes down in a fashion which one did not expect, and is faced with a problem of immense difficulty. In most cases an obstruction is struck while coming down, and an accident happens. We have the best aircraft in the world, but, because of these accidents, we are tending to lose sight of that fact. I have travelled on a number of different airlines, and I have found that our airlines

give confidence to passengers. Among foreign travellers there is a profound belief in the safety of British airlines. Although I am not a supporter of the form of operation which the Government have chosen for our air services, I feel that the desire to serve, as expressed by the ground staffs and attendants at our airports, is something of which we may be proud.
There are two technical points upon which I would like information. The first refers to the policy of the Ministry with regard to the installation of ground approach systems. We hear a lot of rumours. We hear that this apparatus is to be moved to there, and that the Ministry are thinking of installing this or that system. No one seems to be quite sure what are the real intentions of the Ministry. I would be very pleased if the Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply, would give us a definite idea of the Ministry's intentions. The second point is that a lot of people have been worried of late about the maintenance of Dakota aircraft, very largely because spares are not as freely available as they ought to be. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether steps are being taken to make spares available. There is an uneasy feeling in the minds of passengers when they have the idea that there are parts of the engine which should have been replaced a thousand hours ago. I hope we shall be told what steps are being taken in that direction.

3.12 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I am very glad to take the opportunity provided by this Debate to deal with the general question of safety in connection with civil aviation. I think it is a happy position for a Minister to be able to stand at this Box and to say that all parts of the House are in general agreement and on common ground about what should, be our policy for safety. I hope the House will forgive me if I make a personal reference which I think is relevant. As hon. Members know, my noble Friend and I have not been for very long at the Ministry of Civil Aviation. On the first day that we took office we had a conference, at the Minister's direction, to discuss and formulate policy and to consider what should be specially emphasised in regard to that policy. On the very first day my noble


Friend decided that the confidence of the public in civil aviation depended upon safety. It was decided that the question of safety was to be dealt with irrespective of any economic consideration.
In a statement that was made shortly afterwards the Minister said that his policy was safety first, safety second and safety third, regularity of service, comfort an] speed, in that order of preference. In addition, it was decided that safety and regularity depended upon ground organisation. I was pleased, therefore, when emphasis was laid on the importance of ground organisation during this Debate. Perhaps it is only natural that some folk should think that the only thing that matters in the air is the aeroplane. In fact, whether the aeroplane gets into the air, remains in the air, and is able to get down from the air, depends much more upon the ground staff and ground facilities than it does upon the aircraft itself. The decision was to concentrate upon the ground organisation, the installation of radio and radar, and all the allied aids to assist bad weather flying. I am happy to be able to state, particularly as the point has been raised, that the Ministry's first priority is the provision, at the major airports in this country, of every known navigational aid to secure regularity and safety of operation

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Including F.I.D.O.?

Mr. Lindgren: I will deal with F.I.D.0 separately. Not only do we intend to do that in this country, but we intend to use our powers and our influence in seeing that those aids are available at aerodromes in every part of the world. I think it will emphasise what I have said if I read an extract from the speech which the Minister gave to the National Civil Aviation Consultative Council recently. I think it was at the first meeting of that Council on 27th January, and I am certain the House will then appreciate that the policy which has been asked for by a number of hon. Members is, in fact, the policy which has been set by the Ministry. The Minister said:
First and foremost, we must continue un relenting efforts to improve our safety methods still further. At present, we are flying 10 million passenger miles per fatal accident. I want to see us not merely double that, but to reach infinity. Safer flying is largely a

problem of bad weather aids and improved technique at take-off. New radio devices are being perfected, and it will not be long before, as far as navigation is concerned, safe and regular operation in all weathers will be possible, but, of course, it is not only a matter of navigation. We have, for example, to overcome the problem of icing. I hope that, in this direction, great advances will be made in the next few years. A new system of thermal de-icing, combined with the possibility of flying over the weather, should bring great improvements, but, if we are to achieve the greatest possible measure of safety, there are many other problems to which we must pay attention. For many years now, there has been a tendency towards steadily increasing take-off and landing speeds. This cannot continue indefinitely, and I look to our designers and research engineers to find a method to call a halt to this. It may be that, to achieve this, we shall have to accept some slowing down of our progress towards higher speeds. We must not make mere speed into a fetish
In words perhaps of different phrasing, the Minister's speech on that occasion crystallised much of the discussion that has taken place here today, and I hope to be able to assure the House what the policy of the Ministry is. Further, the House will remember that, soon after, taking office, the Minister set up the Air Safety Board, a body of the highest scientific and technical skill, to advise him on all matters of safety which he refers to it, and with powers. Of course, to initiate within themselves recommendations to the Minister on matters which they feel ought to receive his attention in order to attain that greater degree of safety.
I think, perhaps, it may he useful if we consider the conditions under which accidents happen. Some of the statements which have been made today, and with which I will deal in a moment, were rather wide of the mark, but it is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) made a statement this afternoon which is correct and which is also one of which we have every right to be proud—that British civil aviation is amongst the safest in the world. An accident very rarely happens, in fact, one may say, never happens, when the aircraft is in the air flying under good conditions We have achieved the flying of aircraft with absolute mechanical safety On the constructional and mechanical side, we have achieved complete safety. Accidents really occur under three conditions—first, take-off; second, landing; and, third, had weather condi-


tions; the third being due to bad visibility on landing sometimes arising from ice conditions which affect the mechanical parts, the rudder and elevators. I would remind the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin), who referred to the question of competent pilots, that we have every right to be proud of their achievements. In answer to a Question in this House not long ago, I said that we all ought to be proud of the fact that practically every airline in the world is anxious that our pilots should come into their service. Some of them have made very tempting offers to our pilots to accept positions with them.
When one looks at accidents another interesting fact emerges—it is the human factor and not the mechanical factor which goes wrong. After all, everyone makes mistakes. When I was a clerk in the days that I used to work for a living, we could rub out our mistakes but if a pilot makes a mistake there is only a second and the trouble has arisen. There is research going on, and there are developments practically every day on the mechanical side to check against the possibility of human failure on the part of the pilot and the members of the crew; and it is in a combination of the checks against the human failure that we shall find even greater degrees of safety in the future.
A further point that was raised was in regard to our associations with the international development of safety precautions. Reference was made to ourselves and the United States of America, and I should like to pay tribute here to our good friends of the United States. We have had no stauncher allies than the United States in the development of the safety precautions through the Provisional International Civil Aviation Organisation which is more commonly known as P.I.C.A.O. It is through internationally accepted standards that we shall reduce the number of accidents that are likely to occur.

Mr. Rankin: I should like the hon. Gentleman to elucidate one further point when he is dealing with the question of America. I emphasised the need for lower wing-loading which is an essential factor for safety. Is it not the case that the tendency in America today is to proceed higher and higher with wing loading instead of diminishing it as we want it

to be? The weight is now up to 80 pounds per square inch.

Mr. Lindgren: I think that is a fair statement. American manufacturers tend to take more risks than do the British manufacturers, but in so far as P.I.C.A.O. is concerned we are endeavouring to get an international minimum and in obtaining this international minimum the American air lines, operators and Government are assisting. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) to the "met." services. "Met." services as such, of course, are under the Air Ministry and the House will not expect me to deal with what is the responsibility of another Minister. After all, the meteorological services depend upon a comparatively new science. There are also difficulties arising from factors in other countries over which we have no control; but in the development, in conjunction with the Air Ministry, of these services, which are being made available to civilian airlines and aviators, a high standard of achievement has been reached. It is a very difficult problem indeed, because so many factors arise. I would not like to enter into the technicalities of the position—perhaps I could not get very far with the technicalities of the meteorological service—but on every occasion when one gets a "met." forecast one is told what is likely to happen, and then follows one of those qualifications as to what might happen if other factors come into play.

Mr. Austin: I appreciate that "met." services are the responsibility of the Air Ministry and not of the hon. Gentleman. But is he satisfied that those services are fully manned? That is the point at issue.

Mr. Lindgren: They are fully manned wherever it is possible to man them. But here let me say this. There are definite difficulties. In order to get "met." forecasts we have to have men working in very uncongenial conditions in very isolated parts of the world. A large number of these persons have done six years of service with one branch of the service or another. They have been isolated, and they have had all the rough stuff; and some of them are saying. "Well, now we ought to stay in the service, but we will go somewhere where we can see one or two friends now and again, and are not stuck in a hut on a desert island or in the middle of an


isolated swamp." The real difficulty arises in that section of the "met." service where the duty is uncongenial. It is no use burking the issue that there are missing links. I think that the objections have point and will have to be met, possibly on the basis of extra consideration for service under such conditions.
Reference has been made to the question of the maintenance of the planes on the ground. Here, again, I think we sometimes tend to depreciate the skill of our own engineering staffs. The general standard of engineering maintenance is extraordinarily high. The fact that that is so is emphasised, as I suggested earlier on, by the fact that we never get a mechanical defect in the plane itself. The defects which do arise are Ones which arise on landing and at take-off, except on such occasions as were referred to by the hon. Member for Doncaster. But I suggest that the occasion referred to was one of those few times when a pin prick in an airpipe makes all the difference at 8,000 or 9,000 feet. I do not say there is adequate staffing. There are few organisations in this country today that have adequate skilled staff. But where staffing considerations are concerned, the situation within the Corporations is satisfactory. I ought to make it clear, when speaking from this Box, that the Minister can speak only in regard to the maintenance staff and the maintenance of aircraft of those airlines for which the Government have some responsibility through the three Corporations.
The general standard of aircraft maintenance in the best of the charter companies is as high as it is in the Corporations, but in some of the smaller charter companies I am afraid that the standard of maintenance may not be so good. But one ought to say this, that before an aircraft flies there is, in fact, a certificate of airworthiness, and before it takes off there is always the requirement of a certificate of airworthiness from the ground engineer. So that all questions of maintenance are guaranteed, so far as one can guarantee them, by the general regulations of the Ministry and its supervision of the work.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: But the certificate is, surely, an annual certificate?

Mr. Lindgren: No. There is the certificate of airworthiness of the Air Registra-

tion Board, which is an annual certificate. Before an aircraft starts on a flight it should have, as it is required to have by the Air Navigation Regulations, the certificate of the ground engineer that it is, in fact, airworthy. I would not guarantee that that is done by every aircraft that takes off. But I can give a guarantee that every one of the aircraft of the three Corporations has its ground engineer's certificate before taking off. The hon. Member for Stretford thought that the pilot ought to be the person to decide whether an aircraft should take off or not. It is true, as I said in reply to an hon. Member this week, that under present conditions that is the position, but it is questionable whether it is right. I do not think anyone ought to have the power to instruct a pilot to take off, but it is a fact that some pilots have taken off when there was considerable risk to the passengers they were carrying. I think someone on the airport ought to have the power to say that an aircraft should not take off, or at least that passengers should be advised that they are taking a risk in entering an aircraft which is to take off under these conditions.
Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to the fact that today week we shall be having the Second Reading of the Air Navigation Bill, when the question of traffic control and other matters to ensure safety will be under discussion. Reference has also been made to F.I.D.O. It was suggested that some people might have lost their lives because F.I.D.O. had not been installed. That is not in accordance with the facts, because there has been no question of F.I.D.O. where crashes have taken place. F.I.D.O. is only used at aerodromes to enable aircraft to land in bad visibility. I have made a statement, which was quite correct, that the whole question of F.I.D.O. was being reexamined. My noble Friend has ensured that F.I.D.O. should be maintained at Blackbushe aerodrome, and that' research, in conjunction with the R.A.F., is pressed forward. The door is by no means closed.
On this question of research, it is foolish to expect that it will not be a long while before the psychological aspect is got over, and a pilot will readily give himself over to some distant control to land his plane when he himself is quite unable to see the ground for a single moment. There is risk in all movement, whether


it is walking, cycling, horse-riding, in a motorcar. If one merely puts a leg in front of another, there is always the risk of an accident. I quite agree with what has been said in regard to over-emphasising accidents, but that does not mean we are complacent. All I am saying is that we sometimes do a disservice by over exaggeration.
I turn now to the question of dealing with an accident that has taken place: this raises two considerations. Firstly, there is the question of aircraft construction, of making an aircraft able to resist, as far as is possible, the effects of a crash. Secondly, there is the question of easy release for persons trapped inside an aircraft. The associated problems of rescue work, fire-tenders, crash-tenders, and, first-aid hospital services are under the particular attention of my noble Friend.
We are not satisfied that present equipment is of the absolutely high standard which is necessary. There does not seem to have been as much thought given to fire precautions on aerodromes as the N.F.S. have given to domestic and industrial property fire precautions. I repeat, very serious attention is being given to this matter, and everything possible will be done, not only to bring personnel up to a high standard, but also the equipment. Much has been said about the use of foam to fight aircraft fires. The Americans have perfected a very effective equipment using CO2, which is not, in this country, yet available in the quantities that it might be. That matter is being inquired into, to see whether we can develop it any further. I close this Debate by again stressing my thanks to the House for the opportunity which has been given me to make this statement, and to assure Members and the country that in civil aviation operations safety is, and will continue to be, the first consideration. We shall not be satisfied until we reach that high standard of efficiency in which accidents will be things of the past, and we can achieve the fullest confidence of the public.

Orders of the Day — DISPLACED PERSONS, EUROPE

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: I apologise to the Government for having to raise this important subject at such short notice, and I fully appreciate and understand if I

cannot get answers to all the points I wish to make. I want to talk about the whole question of displaced persons, of whom there are approximately 269,000 in the British zone in Germany. There are others in Italy and Austria, about whom I do not know the details so well, and approximately 450,000 in the American and French zones. They have been forced out of their homes, and we have now got to the state where those who would otherwise be willing to be repatriated will not go back for fear that they will be persecuted for their political beliefs.

Mr. Jack Jones: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to raise a matter when a representative of the appropriate Department is not here to hear it or reply to it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): It is perfectly in Order that the Debate should proceed.

Mr. Stokes: May I say to my hon. Friend that although I know that discussions took place earlier today about the Debate having to be put off, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) has agreed that it should go on?
It is the responsibility of the chief Allied Powers to see that these displaced persons receive fair treatment. Unfortunately, it is so common in this country for people to like dirty news that displaced persons, as a whole, have a bad reputation here, and are constantly being referred to as vagabonds and thieves. That is not the case. It is true that there is a small minority, who were let loose from prisons in Poland and elsewhere, who have been a nuisance; they would be a nuisance wherever they went. But the vast majority are first-class people who, if let into this country, would be of great benefit to our stock, would help to raise the standard of living, and would be of immense use anywhere where there was a labour shortage. The doctor who looks after them, and who was a hero at El Alamein, assures me that their health is in first-class condition.
There are three alternatives for these people. Either they have to be forcibly repatriated, which is unthinkable, or they have to be dumped into Germany which, again, is unthinkable and most undesirable. They would become the tag end of a mixed population, and many, in any case,


curse the Germans for their present condition. Thirdly, we have to find some way of settling them among ourselves. I cannot understand why His Majesty's Government and the United States and French Governments cannot settle this matter themselves. The three of us have a white population of 245 million, and the total of these displaced persons is about one million, which is less than 1 per cent. of the white population of our joint Empires.
Of the number in our zone in Germany, 150,000 are employable, able and willing to work. They would be of great assistance to anyone needing manpower. That number comprises about 64 per cent. of the whole. I do not want to detain the House with too many figures because I know other Members wish to speak, but it is important to remember that there are trades, which are short staffed, in which many of these people could fill gaps. In the agricultural industry, for instance, there are 34,000 displaced people who are registered as competent workers. In the specialist trades there are 32,000, in the metal trades nearly 3,000, and in the professional trades about 8,000.
I want to deal, shortly, with the objections, such as they have been presented to me, and the difficulties of bringing these people here now. I know that the Ministry of Labour are making efforts to bring people in as hospital assistants, but that is on the female side. Of the 150,000 capable workers, over 100,000 are males. So far as is publicly known, the Ministry of Labour are dealing only with females at the moment. We are told that there is a great housing shortage in this country and a food problem. The answer to the last point is that these people have to be fed anyway, and that we, or somebody, have to pay for the food kept in Germany.
The housing problem does not present any difficulty, because there are available vast camps which were used by the American Forces and ourselves. They are now empty, and are palaces compared with the places in which these people are now living. Given the opportunity, they could convert these places into first-class dwelling houses. I am sure that hundreds of thousands of them would 'welcome the opportunity of coming here in those conditions. Secondly, as a result of years of unemployment at home, as the

result of Tory mismanagement, it is feared that there will not be enough jobs for everybody. We on this side believe that there will be full employment and more jobs for men to do than there are men to do them. Therefore, our workers should be assured that they will not be thrown out of work if foreigners are admitted into our midst. I could not help but admire Low's cartoon the other day which showed. Colonel Blimp watching foreigners coming in with, behind him, representatives of the mongrel lot from which we are descended. This country benefited enormously by the incursion of foreign blood. Anyone who is a student of history knows that to be the case Moreover, it is good business.
We are told that in order to compensate for the loss of our overseas investments we must export more—materials, machinery, and the like. What does that mean? It means that, if that is so, and if we are not to let our own standard of living down, we have to employ a larger labour force in this country than ever before. I cannot say exactly what the figure is, but the "Manchester Guardian", yesterday, said that there were at present only 497,000—disregarding the present crisis period—more people in employment than there were in 1939. That includes nearly 1,250,000 in the Armed Forces, and, of course, we did not have anything like that number in the Armed Forces before the war. If we do not want to let our own standard of living down, and we are to maintain it by increased exports and production for our own consumption, we require at least 1,250,000 able-bodied workers now—not next year or the year after but now—otherwise the standard of living will go steadily down. The figure may be 2½ million—I do not know, because I have not the statistics available—but we have to have more than we have now in employment in this country if the standard of living is not to fall.
There are one or two other points which I wish to make. I appreciate the importance of people going back to their own countries, but it is the general feeling that no one should be forced to do so if he does not wish to do so for decent political reasons. We have heard arguments on both sides of the House about the Poles. I appreciate the importance of persuading as many Poles as possible to go back to Poland. There are a great


many displaced persons, and peasant people particularly, who, I think, would be better off in Poland, as it is today, than anywhere else. I am, of course, talking about the non-political people. When I was in Germany recently, I had the opportunity of speaking to those in charge of displaced persons. I talked to the doctor, whom I have already mentioned, and to a young lady who looks after child repatriation. In Poland, there are some 30 institutions for parentless children. This young lady has visited 15, of which 13 of them are still in the hands of the nuns, and in the other two every religious liberty is allowed—and the children are well clothed and well fed. The doctor gave a similar report about the conditions in hospitals. It is important that people should understand what the conditions are, so that they may know what they are going to, if they go back. I see the importance of not forcing them to go hack, but I want them to realise the facts, so that they may make the right choice, and, I hope, go back to help their own country.
There is one beastliness to which I must refer. There is a nasty game of "body snatching" going on amongst the Powers. I came across it while traveling on the Continent. The authorities have had instructions that they are to uproot children, whatever the conditions in which they are living, and force them to go back to their so-called country of origin. I wish to raise a protest about that. There are roughly four categories. There are the children in institutions in Germany, and are not Germans—and no one can complain that they should be transferred to institutions in their country of origin.
There are also the children who, when they were picked up under the beastly scheme of the Nazis to increase manpower, were transplanted at the age of six or seven. They are now between the ages of 12 and 13, and many of them have parents still alive. They are at an age when they should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they want to go back. Any child whose parents are alive should he sent back to its parents. There are younger children whose parents are known, and they should go back to them. In that category I do not include the illegitimate children of a French, or Polish, or Czechoslovakian soldier by a

German woman. Those children ought to be left with their mothers and not be taken away as some of the Governments are claiming to do. That is a kind of crime that ought to be prevented.
The fourth category is the worst of all. Some children were planted out by the Germans when only one or two years old. They had no knowledge of what life was about, and the existence of their parents is not known. The origin of the children is known, however. It is wrong, where those children are safely living in families with whom they are happy and well looked after, with the only parents of whom they have any knowledge—foster parents—that they should be forcibly taken away, out of the happy family to an institution in what is to them an entirely foreign country. I hope that His Majesty's Government will give instructions in Germany that that practice must stop.
I ask that this matter of displaced persons should be treated with the urgency which it deserves. I do not want to get into a quarrel with the United Nations or the international refugee organisations, but whether the people are Poles. Ukrainians or Jews, we are responsible. We have a great responsibility for getting those people resettled where they can enjoy a reasonably safe and happy life. If the three nations, the United States. France and ourselves, really set about it, there is no reason whatever why they should not be able to do it. Russia always claims that she has no displaced person problem, I understand. She has in fact 1,500,000 displaced persons—nearly one million Poles—forcibly taken away to Russia, and Latvians, Esthonians, etc. I am sure that the generosity of the British nation is equal to this difficulty and that we shall be able to clear up this situation if only the Government will set about it.

3.47 P.m.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Member has raised a serious question, and in concentrating upon one aspect of the matter I do not want it to be thought for a moment that I do not regard it as important to do the decent thing merely because it is the decent thing. That is extremely important, just for itself. I believe that here, in doing the decent thing, we are doing something which is vitally necessary for ourselves. There are two aspects of the problem, the short-


term and the long-term, and with the long-term is involved a problem of the birthrate.
Let me examine our position today. We have not yet reached the point where we are actually a dwindling population, but we have reached the point where the working section of our population is dwindling. Young people coming forward into industry are being outnumbered by the old people going out of industry. That is the situation which it is vitally necessary that we should recognise in connection with this problem. Added to it is the circumstance that, for the first time in the history of this country, we require a peacetime Army to defend us. In the old days we did not keep an Army in peacetime to defend ourselves. The balance of power did that for us. We had an Army on the Continent to take the first blow. We started every war unprepared, but we won the last battle. That was not just coincidence; it was cause and effect. We won because we had been unprepared. Our unprepared ness arose from the fact that we had used peace to build up our economic strength.
Our economic strength was the measure of our potential reserve, and towards the end of the war that potential reserve became conclusive, and that is why we won the last battle. Today that situation no longer exists. We have to be in a position to take the first brunt, and as there seems no reasonable possibility of a balance of power in Europe, that means that we have to look upon our Army as something which must be maintained and be ready for an immediate emergency. It is not merely a question of the number in the Forces, but of the Forces being equipped for immediate action. That means constant change of equipment, and great numbers of people making that constantly new equipment. In the old days it was quite all right to have a cavalry regiment. Nobody imagined that the horses would be used in war, but it amused the soldiers, and the weapons which would actually be used in war would be made after the war had started when we knew what weapons would be appropriate. We cannot afford those luxuries now.
Secondly and here is a matter which again is vital, we are now a great debtor

nation. Before the war we were a great creditor nation. When you are a creditor nation there may be something against bringing in additional people to share the credit, but when you are a debtor there seems to be less against bringing in additional people to share the debt. Lastly, there is the question, referred to by my hon. Friend, of this new policy of full employment. Let us remember that full employment is an economic experiment which is being tried for the first time in a free community. We have no past experience of that experiment, which I believe can only work if it is coupled with an immigration policy. Full employment means that people have a choice of jobs, and when they have that choice I cannot conceive that there will ever be enough people who will choose the bottom jobs. There will always be a shortage of labour in the basic industries so long as there is full employment in a free economy, and that situation can only be overcome by a constant inflow from those nations where the standard of living is lower and where our bottom jobs appear to be jobs of luxury.
That, then, is the long-term background of this problem, but there is an immediate short-term situation. It took Dunkirk to tell this nation that there was a war on, and I believe it has taken this coal crisis to tell this nation that it is, in economic terms, fighting for its life. My own view is that if we take our chance now we shall be able to look back in history and see this as one of our crucial dates, one of our great dates, the date when, after the reaction of war, this country pulled itself together. I believe that spirit is abroad. The general reaction of the public to this crisis has been the most heartening thing which has happened since the war. One has felt a new spirit abroad in the streets, and I believe that today this Government can do anything, and the public will accept anything, which is necessary to deal with the situation in which we find ourselves.
Just as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) after Dunkirk could ask anything of this people, I believe that is the situation again today, and that now is the time to take this vital decision. I do not, of course, suggest—I am glad that a Member of the Cabinet is here—that we can suddenly switch a great body of people from Germany to England. That takes time. The decision is what matters, and the


decision can be taken at once, and now is the time to take that decision because the country is prepared for it. Let us say, "These people are coming here." I know it will take time to train them. Of course it will. We shall not get immediate production from them. I know there is a language difficulty, but there was a language difficulty in the war and we got over it. Troops of many languages fought together splendidly in our service, and language is just as big a problem In fighting as in working. There is also the question of finding accommodation for them. We found accommodation for 2,000,000 Americans, and we can do this today if there is the heart and spirit. We can do this job, but we can only do it if we take the decision now when the time is appropriate for decisions.
I urge very much that this thing be dealt with After all, these are people who are enduring and have endured with great constancy appalling and hopeless conditions for a number of years because their love of freedom was so intense that they preferred any conditions under the aegis of a free Government to returning to conditions which were not free. Surely that is the spirit and the stuff of which we can make Britons.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: I rise to support as strongly as possible the plea to which the House has just listened from the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) I cannot understand why the Government are so hesitant upon this particular subject. It is a fact that there is at the present moment a shortage of something in the region of 500,000 workers, and in certain industries where they are vitally wanted. In addition men are going overseas every day to emigrate to the sunny lands they visited in the course of the war. It would, of course, be a most terrible thing if we ever had to do anything to discourage emigration to our own Empire, but I do not believe we can afford the loss of this vigorous young blood of our nation unless we replace it by something comparable.
We must not forget the question of the German prisoners, of whom we have 340,000 working in this country. In a year or two they will have gone back to their own country unless we take positive steps to offer them some inducement to defer

their return and stay with us longer. What we are going to do for labour when these German prisoners have left this country, I do not know. I do not know how we shall get the harvest in when they have gone. We shall feel the shortage of labour all over this country in consequence of their departure.
That is an additional reason for realising that this figure of half a million workers of which we are at present short will in due course be very much greater. I cannot understand how it is that the Government are so reluctant to take these skilled men, Lithuanians, Letts, Esthonians, Poles, Yugoslavs, Czechs, or whatever they are, in these displaced persons camps in Germany. The action of the Belgian Government in taking 15,000 to 20,000 skilled miners into the Belgian mining industry was an extremely sensible decision, and I wish this Government would do likewise.
Not only are the economic grounds for taking skilled men of good character to fill our own labour shortage irresistible, but there are also very strong ethnographical reasons for doing so. We are suffering from the falling birth rate of the late 20'S and 30's and have no fewer than 200,000 numerically surplus women. I believe that is an unfortunate sociological factor.

It being Four o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Michael Stewart.]

Mr. Martin Lindsay: I believe that women should have the choice of marrying or remaining single. On the assumption that we should take mainly single men, there are the strongest possible ethnographical reasons for having an infusion of vigorous new blood from overseas at the present time. Many years ago, when the population of this country was only seven millions, we took no fewer than 100,000 Huguenots into this country, and we have very greatly benefited from doing so, and also from other foreign blood at different times in the course of our history. I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton that the superficial difficulties of language and accommodation could be overcome with good will and determination. There is hutted accommodation for gang labour in this country, which, to many of these men would be luxury compared with conditions with which they


have had to put up, even if it is not suitable for the British workman and his family.
I believe a great number of families in this country, if asked to do so, would be prepared to billet young single men of good character who wanted to come to work in this country. To my mind the case, both on economic and ethnographical grounds, is overwhelming, and it is largely prejudice which makes the Government and the leaders of labour so unwilling to have them in this country. The best service the Government could render would be to make more information available about these people, who form so valuable a potential labour source. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply that a strong Parliamentary Mission should go out at an early date to the British zone of Germany to visit these displaced persons camps and to form an opinion of the men and women who are available and wish to come to this country. I hope the Government will take a more sensible and reasonable attitude on this important question

4.5 p m

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge (Bedtord): It is refreshing to find both sides of the House in common agreement in regard to this very important matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). As I see it, one of the difficulties, which must be resolved, above all others, is that of ensuring that there is a complete mental readjustment on the part of the people of this country towards the immigration of a large body of foreigners. There are far too many people who are resistant to the idea of large numbers of foreigners coming here. I ask my right hon. Friend to give me an assurance in this respect. He must do all he can to remove this wretched prejudice. I am bound to say that on the part of the Government there has been so far a certain lethargy and apathy in their approach to this question. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich mentioned a figure in the region of 1,250,000 as the number of people urgently required in addition to the labour force which we have already. In the White Paper published by the Government recently, 657,000 workers were designated as being necessary if our under-manned industries were to be brought back to the 1939 level.

Mr. Stokes: The figure was higher than that.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: It excludes the needs of agriculture and does not take into account the very great changes which have taken place since 1939. Another factor, which we would do well to bear in mind in our approach to this problem, is that to leave these people rotting in idleness, eating their hearts out in Germany, Austria and Italy, will lead to then morale and eventual usefulness being diminished. Rapid action is necessary it that disaster is to be avoided. My hon Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in his altogether excellent speech, pointed out that in the important age group so far as industry is concerned, there is likely to be an inadequate number of people to draw upon for some years ahead. That age group is, I reckon, from 18 to 44. In the British and American zones of Germany and Austria alone, there are some 250,000 men and 180,000 women in that age group and many of them are already trained workers.
Recently U.N.R.R.A. carried out an occupational survey of people in this group. It may interest the House to know that it covered no fewer than 140 separately listed occupations. Figures for a few of the most important categories are as follows: fully trained miners, 850; bricklayers. 1,808; carpenters, 5,569; electricians, 3,467; plumbers— and we could do with them just now—530; textile workers, 2,220; and nurses, of whom we are particularly short, 3891. The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) mentioned that Belgium has already taken action to enlist workers in her industries.
Might I warn my right hon. Friend the acting Leader of the House against a situation in which other countries are going to steal a march on us in this direction? The trade unions, and my right hon. Friend has great influence with them, must be persuaded to scrap their unimaginative approach to the whole question. We on this side of the House; talk about Conservatism in some degree, the trade unions of this country are the most conservative body in it, and it is just as well that we should recognise that and recognise that they should adopt a more liberal approach to this matter. Again, the Home Office has for many years. though not so much lately, I am


glad to say, shown a too nationalistic approach to immigration, and must now reckon with the dire necessity of taking into our population, and assimilating into our national life, hundreds of thousands of people of other nationalities and races.
Our island population will be refreshed, enriched and strengthened if that process is carried through in an orderly and proper fashion. I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the several points I have made, and to urge on the Cabinet rapid and drastic action so that the economy of this country, which we want to maintain, build up and establish for the future, can the better be built up and established by bringing these people over here.

4.13 p.m.

Sir Arthur Salter: I am sure that, if the Government would arrange for the immediate entry of a considerable number of these persons into his country, they would achieve three very valuable purposes at one stroke. In the first place, they would he offering hope and salvation to a number of people who are now, as one hon. Member has said, rotting in idleness; in the second place, they would be saving the very considerable expense of keeping these people in Germany; and, in the third place, they would be helping to supplement the deficient manpower situation in this country.
I am thinking now, not of a seven figure number, but of a six figure number, It is very instructive, if we are thinking of that order of magnitude, to compare the skill and aptitude of these people, longing for nothing so much as useful employment, with the White Paper published a few days ago showing the lack of precisely these same skills and aptitudes in this country. I am sure that the objections which have been made are nothing but easily surmountable difficulties. Take, for example, that of the admixture of foreigners in our country. Look at the numbers. If we want to know what it is that can change the character of a population, we have only to look at the emigration from Europe to America before the first world war, that is to say, 10 million people into a population of 100 million in the space of about 10 years. We are not thinking in numbers of that kind.
I suggest that we do not want anything that will take as long as the proposal that was made by one hon. Member that there should be a Parliamentary Commission. The Government know enough to act at once. What is needed is an adequate number of representatives of the Ministry of Labour to go over with immediate authority to ask for volunteers and to select people up to a certain number with the requisite skill. I think that they should select them and appoint them even if there is not the immediate possibility of transfer and absorption for all. If the men are selected anti know that they are selected, the chances of their maintaining their moral, which in many cases they have maintained remarkably well in spite of ad their difficulties, will be greater. In present circumstances they cannot be expected to maintain it much longer.

Mr. Stokes: With their families?

Sir A. Salter: Yes, with their families. I have been to some of the settlements, and I think it would be impossible for any hon Member to see these men and women, who have had nothing but tragedy in the past and blank uncertainty in the future, without being deeply impressed at the manner in which they have maintained their morale. When I saw them they were organising things in their settlement, and as I talked to them—many of them spoke English—I came to the conclusion that they were ideal emigrants to come either into this country or into any other country which needs to supplement its manpower position. I am sure if we take the action that I am urging now we shall gain an enormous benefit for ourselves in the first instance for we could incidentally, if we act quickly, get the best of the pick, and a very good best it is. Further, I think we should, by doing so, initiate competition amongst other countries who have a desire for emigrants, and that would collectively solve this extremely difficult and expensive problem which we have now upon us

4.17 p.m

Mr. Hollis: I will not make a speech and come between the House and the Lord Privy Seal, whom we are anxious to hear, but I should like to emphasize the very remarkable unity shown in every quarter of the House on this subject, and call attention to the remarkable letter which appeared in "The Times"


this morning from Professor Lionel Robbins, which is a summary of an article of his in the "Lloyds Bank Review." In that letter he demonstrates most cogently in my opinion that, so far from being the cause of unemployment, the introduction of foreign labour into this country under our present circumstances—and whether we follow the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr Paget) in this connection is another matter—is one possible way by which we can escape unemployment in this country

4.18 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I did not expect to be in a position to have to reply to this Debate this afternoon, though I am quite ready to do so. I welcome very much this unity of feeling on what in my younger days used to be a very controversial problem about emigrants into this country. I fail to understand why it should be thought that His Majesty's Government are somehow against the employment of foreign labour in this country. That, I assure the House, is not true. As to forcible repatriation, no one has ever charged us with being guilty of that. Indeed, we could not in any circumstances force people to go back to their own country if conditions there are repugnant and dangerous to them.
We are faced, as we all know, with an entirely new situation in this country—a shortage of labour. Up to now we have suffered from a shortage of employment possibilities for the labour that was available, and, therefore, we have to accept the view that we must recruit labour forces from all appropriate quarters. This country has always offered asylum to people who have suffered from political or religious persecution. Reference was made to the Huguenots. Now, we are faced with the problem of directly recruiting people, if we can, from countries abroad. I am not so sure that I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), that we should not bother the rest of the world, and that the problem ought to be dealt with by us, France and the United States of America. Of the three nations, believe me, we seem to get the heavier end of the stick we are called upon to bear very heavy responsibilities, about which we make no complaint; it is our misfortune, I am afraid. It is historic that it should be so.

Sir A. Salter: Lighten the burden. Do not increase it.

Mr. Greenwood: We are anxious to deal with this problem, but I would ask the House not to minimise the difficulties. The difficulties are substantial. My right hon. Friend the senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) said it was important to send Ministry of Labour people abroad. Well, we have Ministry of Labour people abroad. I hope he is not challenging that statement.

Sir A. Salter: What I said was "an adequate number with full authority immediately to select." Those are two different things, I think.

Mr. Greenwood: With regard to the latter, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is developing, and developing very rapidly. Whether the numbers are adequate I should not like to say, but if he were to ask me in a fortnight's time what the numbers are, perhaps I could say. It is very difficult to judge adequately. The number of people who can choose foreigners for a job is as limited as manpower in other directions. The difficulties are substantial. It is perfectly true that the language difficulty did not lose us the war, but it is equally true that the language difficulty over here in peacetime is one of which account has to be taken. That is not so in wartime, when we have unanimity amongst men who speak the same language. That is one thing. If we have little pockets of people, or single individuals, employed on a particular job, the language difficulty is of some importance; and so are the customs, and so on. The idea that the question of accommodation is an easy one is absurd. Believe me, it is not easy. It is a very substantial difficulty, and a very important difficulty that lies in our way at the present time.

Mr. Stokes: What about the hutted camps?

Mr. Greenwood: I am coming to that point. I wish my hon. Friend would not be so impetuous. At the present time, in the development areas, where we have on occasions to bring in new labour, the accommodation of our own people is a very difficult question. It is no good talking about billeting and lodgings. The idea that we can use huts, and so on, is completely fantastic. We examined that


possibility ourselves, as a means of providing accommodation for our own home labour force and in connection with the housing of the people. What is the use of an ex-American camp with accommodation for 5,000 people that is 15 miles away from a railway station, and 20 miles from any industrial centre where people are needed? Believe me, I am satisfied about this, and I have given some little attention to it.

Mr. Stokes: If I provide my right hon. Friend with a list of camps within five miles of Ipswich, will he have another look -it it?

Mr. Greenwood: Of course, I will I am not turning this down out of hand. All I am saying is that we are talking of 250,000, or 2,500,000, which is double the original estimate. I have often been reproved for saying rash things about pounds, shillings and pence. My hon. Friend does not mind much whether it i, one and a half million, or two and a half million, I can assure him that all the hutted accommodation available could not meet the situation, and that we should find on our hands, not what everyone desires, a working population, but a population which we should have to keep.
There is no prejudice on the part of the Government against the employment of foreign labour. There was some reluctance on the part of the trade union movement, which is a reluctance I perfectly well understand; perhaps it is not yet fully recognised by everyone, that instead of having a standing, idle army of labour, we are now wanting more recruits for our army of labour, which is a new situation. It is not without interest that the National Union of Mine Workers have agreed and are prepared to accept Poles. Other unions ate coming into line, and negotiations have been going on now for some time with regard to the employment of foreign labour. The unions are perfectly entitled to argue that these people should not be used to

break down existing conditions, and, therefore, that they must be treated, as far as pay and conditions are concerned, on an equality basis, and, secondly, if it should be—and this is an ever present fear in the minds of the working people—that it comes to days of unemployment, they will be the first people to be dispensed with. That seems perfectly reasonable, but these things take a good deal of working out.
We are now in a position where there are tremendous possibilities and capacity for development and production, and there are shortages of either equipment or labour. I would not myself think it was right that we should take upon our shoulders—we welcome all the willing labour that will come to this country— a sort of major responsibility for this. Plans are in progress now for displaced persons to go to parts of the Empire, America and elsewhere. That is all to the good. Reference was made to the use of German prisoners. Of course we are using German prisoners, but this nation cannot rebuild with permanent slave labour. The idea that we should keep German prisoners here to fill the gap which might be filled with greater technical efficiency in all kinds of ways, is an idea we cannot accept, nor would I personally be willing to accept unexamined any German prisoners who wished to stay in this country, until I was satisfied that some might not be cells to be used to the national disadvantage. We are repatriating German prisoners. The Germans should build their own life, and work for their own living in their own country. I deplore the view that we should maintain here by compulsion, for what appears to be an unlimited period of time, German prisoners of war to help our agriculture. That view surprises me.

It being Half-past Four o'Clock, MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order